Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-12-2019, 05:19 PM
#341
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 47
"Especially the ones who will be affected by this SAPA, Mesa and Republic games."
Do you think it is us that are playing games? We had an agreement. UAPLA broke that agreement. SAPA didn't agree to the new UAPLA terms. Therefore we have no jumpseat agreement. If we have no current agreement, then doesn't that mean that neither of us can fly in each other's jumpseats? Why is this "SAPA's games"? UALPA broke the agreement. Right or wrong, UALPA changed the status quo. Why are you blaming us for this?
Do you think it is us that are playing games? We had an agreement. UAPLA broke that agreement. SAPA didn't agree to the new UAPLA terms. Therefore we have no jumpseat agreement. If we have no current agreement, then doesn't that mean that neither of us can fly in each other's jumpseats? Why is this "SAPA's games"? UALPA broke the agreement. Right or wrong, UALPA changed the status quo. Why are you blaming us for this?
We are asking for status quo.
All United is asking for is the same jumpseat agreement you currently have with your other major airline partners. (Which is better than your agreement with Alaska)
That's it!
Do you find your agreements with Delta, Aa, and Alaska to be unfair?
10-12-2019, 05:26 PM
#342
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 645
I am not a commuter so this issue doesn't have an impact on me personally. Someone with a lot of first hand knowledge just posted a comment on a United forum. It sounds like the issue with Skywest and Republic is that flying for Delta, United and American they are granted a higher priority on all three airlines that will place them ahead of United pilots, even though many of their pilots don't fly feed for all of the carriers. I don't see how anyone, when they step back and look at that, can say well that's OK. The United MEC has attempted to resolve the issue for years without any cooperation from the pilots at Skywest or Republic.
10-12-2019, 05:30 PM
#343
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 303
This threatening behavior of trying to hurt another pilots career needs to stop. You’re totally unprofessional turning in pilot names to recruitment or HR without the other pilot knowing about it. If you have a problem jumpseating, contact the union and/or jumpseat committee.
They are not professionals, therefore not to be dealt with by pro stan. Many would agree they should not even be in the industry, as they are showing behavior
Last edited by tomgoodman; 10-12-2019 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Insult
10-12-2019, 05:31 PM
#344
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,967
I am not a commuter so this issue doesn't have an impact on me personally. Someone with a lot of first hand knowledge just posted a comment on a United forum. It sounds like the issue with Skywest and Republic is that flying for Delta, United and American they are granted a higher priority on all three airlines that will place them ahead of United pilots, even though many of their pilots don't fly feed for all of the carriers. I don't see how anyone, when they step back and look at that, can say well that's OK. The United MEC has attempted to resolve the issue for years without any cooperation from the pilots at Skywest or Republic.
10-12-2019, 05:41 PM
#345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Position: B747 FO
Posts: 626
Another pilot denying jumpseat for no valid reason other than in a jumpseat war harms other pilots careers as well, especially if they cannot make it to work.
They are not professionals, therefore not to be dealt with by pro stan. Many would agree they should not even be in the industry, as they are showing behavior
They are not professionals, therefore not to be dealt with by pro stan. Many would agree they should not even be in the industry, as they are showing behavior
They will either knowingly ignore the FOM, which could result in a FAA violation (specially if they remove the section that stipulates UA in the FOM), and one which is not protected by an ASAP.
Or they will face retribution, by pilots who claim that they will make sure they become persona non grata with UA.
I mean, United have a long list of so called "scabs"... so what is that you want? A person who goes against company policy, union demand or knowingly ignores FOM to further his career?
I would hate to find myself in this situation, i don't know what i would do? Either way you are in a ****hole.
Last edited by tomgoodman; 10-12-2019 at 05:46 PM. Reason: Deleted insult in quoted post
10-12-2019, 05:46 PM
#346
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
It is not status quo.
We are asking for status quo.
All United is asking for is the same jumpseat agreement you currently have with your other major airline partners. (Which is better than your agreement with Alaska)
That's it!
Do you find your agreements with Delta, Aa, and Alaska to be unfair?
We are asking for status quo.
All United is asking for is the same jumpseat agreement you currently have with your other major airline partners. (Which is better than your agreement with Alaska)
That's it!
Do you find your agreements with Delta, Aa, and Alaska to be unfair?
Now, I don't keep up to date with everything, so please correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't know of any regional getting the priority bump just because they exclusively fly one paint job, it just happens to be a side effect of being a wholly-owned.
The priority trend to my understanding is:
1. Own metal
2. Holding/Sister Company metal
3. Operate same system (UA, AA, DL)
4. OAL
Which is noticeably different than United's new priority.
10-12-2019, 05:46 PM
#347
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 705
My problem with what you are saying is that the captains that choose to follow their respective company/union policy is doomed either way.
They will either knowingly ignore the FOM, which could result in a FAA violation (specially if they remove the section that stipulates UA in the FOM), and one which is not protected by an ASAP.
Or they will face retribution, by pilots who claim that they will make sure they become persona non grata with UA.
I mean, United have a long list of so called "scabs"... so what is that you want? A person who goes against company policy, union demand or knowingly ignores FOM to further his career?
I would hate to find myself in this situation, i don't know what i would do? Either way you are in a ****hole.
They will either knowingly ignore the FOM, which could result in a FAA violation (specially if they remove the section that stipulates UA in the FOM), and one which is not protected by an ASAP.
Or they will face retribution, by pilots who claim that they will make sure they become persona non grata with UA.
I mean, United have a long list of so called "scabs"... so what is that you want? A person who goes against company policy, union demand or knowingly ignores FOM to further his career?
I would hate to find myself in this situation, i don't know what i would do? Either way you are in a ****hole.
10-12-2019, 05:52 PM
#349
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 118
Where is it in writing that Skywest and UAL had an agreement on the exact priority for jumpseats? If UAL was moving Skywest up in the jumpseat hierarchy wouldn't that be violating the "agreement" too? Would you be denying UAL pilots the jumpseat because they "unilaterally" changed the agreement if that was the case?
You seem to be saying that nothing was in writing and if there was no agreement then we shouldn't have been flying in each other's jumpseats all these years - correct?
10-12-2019, 05:54 PM
#350
Get me outta here...
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Boeing right seat
Posts: 1,541
I'm guessing that scabs getting turned down from a jumpseat has become less and less frequent. I don't even see the Captains check the list when a jumpseater shows up. And I've never seen a Captain (UAL or other) do it when I jumpseat.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
