Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-13-2019, 07:04 PM
#542
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: 777 CA
Posts: 1,049
Being an RAH pilot I completely agree with all of your sentiments and convictions. I have commuted out of a UAL hub for a number of years with a majority of it sitting in a United jumpseat. Professionalism, courtesy, and reciprocity has resulted in new golfing buddies, letters of rec, and a meet and greet. One day it would be nice to drive to work, just like yourself.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot.
10-13-2019, 07:04 PM
#543
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Guppy Gear Slinger
Posts: 2,037
So just to be clear : Skywest's decision was made by a very small number of SAPA reps (you could count them on two hands.). That's it. There was absolutely no consultation whatsoever with any other of the 5000+ pilots at Skywest. The first any of us heard of this was the 'You will get violated if you accept UAL/ UAX-E jumpseaters' email.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish. I have not yet talked to a single person who supports denying anyone a seat, although we do have some senior CAs who also believe that they have no choice and could put their certificates at risk. (That's a very misinformed opinion, but it is what it is.)
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish. I have not yet talked to a single person who supports denying anyone a seat, although we do have some senior CAs who also believe that they have no choice and could put their certificates at risk. (That's a very misinformed opinion, but it is what it is.)
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
10-13-2019, 07:05 PM
#545
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 303
Being an RAH pilot I completely agree with all of your sentiments and convictions. I have commuted out of a UAL hub for a number of years with a majority of it sitting in a United jumpseat. Professionalism, courtesy, and reciprocity has resulted in new golfing buddies, letters of rec, and a meet and greet. One day it would be nice to drive to work, just like yourself.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot. Our elected officials and their appointed committee members have asked us to stand in unity on this matter. Unfortunately UALPA has played the card of threatening career progression for anyone standing in unity with our brothers and sisters. Frankly it seems like Union Busting 101 and is disappointing.
As a commuter I don’t want to deny anyone the jumpseat and I hope it never comes to that, but rest assured there would be a professional conversation with my ID clearly visible. I purposefully left out my opinions and will leave it to our Executive Board/MEC to sort it out. But you seeming like a person of principals and level headedness I hope there is some common ground with many of us on the other side.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot. Our elected officials and their appointed committee members have asked us to stand in unity on this matter. Unfortunately UALPA has played the card of threatening career progression for anyone standing in unity with our brothers and sisters. Frankly it seems like Union Busting 101 and is disappointing.
As a commuter I don’t want to deny anyone the jumpseat and I hope it never comes to that, but rest assured there would be a professional conversation with my ID clearly visible. I purposefully left out my opinions and will leave it to our Executive Board/MEC to sort it out. But you seeming like a person of principals and level headedness I hope there is some common ground with many of us on the other side.
AA recently hired a pilot outside the flow. He was hired because he went out of his way to help a pilot who was commuting retrieve his luggage from the hold of his jet. He had no idea that pilot was a Chief, and same Chief opened the door that allowed him in far before his flow time. Imagine the outcome had he denied that pilot his commute, or blown off helping him with his bag.
All pilots need to be more open to the situations of others.
This war is stupid and should have been resolved long ago. Refuse to participate is what everyone should do. Your brother and sister pilots flying for other airlines are not the enemy.
10-13-2019, 07:06 PM
#546
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Moderator input
During a temporary lull in the storm of insults from both “sides” of this issue, please note:
1. An otherwise good post may be deleted if it contains an insult or improper language.
2. If a good post quotes a bad one, both may be deleted.
3. To avoid infractions, use the “report post” function instead of replying to a bad post with a bad one of your own.
4. If you think we have overlooked a rule violation by someone else, it’s probably because you did not report it.
5. We have limited manpower here, and without your cooperation we will have to close threads like this one.
6. You may appeal a Mod ruling by sending a PM to one of the Administrators, but do not argue the matter on open forum pages.
Thanks.
1. An otherwise good post may be deleted if it contains an insult or improper language.
2. If a good post quotes a bad one, both may be deleted.
3. To avoid infractions, use the “report post” function instead of replying to a bad post with a bad one of your own.
4. If you think we have overlooked a rule violation by someone else, it’s probably because you did not report it.
5. We have limited manpower here, and without your cooperation we will have to close threads like this one.
6. You may appeal a Mod ruling by sending a PM to one of the Administrators, but do not argue the matter on open forum pages.
Thanks.
10-13-2019, 07:06 PM
#547
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 30
So just to be clear : Skywest's decision was made by a very small number of SAPA reps (you could count them on two hands.). That's it. There was absolutely no consultation whatsoever with any other of the 5000+ pilots at Skywest. The first any of us heard of this was the 'You will get violated if you accept UAL/ UAX-E jumpseaters' email.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish.
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish.
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
You're an FO with no JS authority.
10-13-2019, 07:09 PM
#548
Gets Rolled on the Reg.
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 274
Hey Tom can we get an IP check here on aisle 5 for a repeatedly banned special one?
10-13-2019, 07:10 PM
#549
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 30
So just to be clear : Skywest's decision was made by a very small number of SAPA reps (you could count them on two hands.). That's it. There was absolutely no consultation whatsoever with any other of the 5000+ pilots at Skywest. The first any of us heard of this was the 'You will get violated if you accept UAL/ UAX-E jumpseaters' email.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish. I have not yet talked to a single person who supports denying anyone a seat, although we do have some senior CAs who also believe that they have no choice and could put their certificates at risk. (That's a very misinformed opinion, but it is what it is.)
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
Judging by discussions on internal SW forums and the 30+ pilots I've now personally talked to, the overwhelming feeling is one of confusion and anger. Confusion among really new guys who believe that they could indeed get violated by accepting a UAL/ UAX-E jumpseater, and anger among guys who feel, as I do, that SAPA's action is extreme, unjustified, and foolish. I have not yet talked to a single person who supports denying anyone a seat, although we do have some senior CAs who also believe that they have no choice and could put their certificates at risk. (That's a very misinformed opinion, but it is what it is.)
There has been precisely zero additional communication from SAPA on the issue, and that's extremely disappointing although not surprising, to be honest.
Please ignore the rantings of a few nitwits on this forum who aren't even Skywest pilots. And realize that SAPA's actions don't speak for the vast majority of us.
There is an effort underway to get a formal opinion issued by our POI, which will hopefully refute the claim that jumpseat priority is a regulatory item. (It's a little confusing even to me, because the jumpseat authorization list is printed in both our FOM, which is regulatory, as well as another manual which is most definitely not regulatory. I can see how junior guys might believe they will in fact risk their certificates by accepting a jumpseater. So a black-and-white statement from the FAA, which will take time to obtain, should certainly be helpful here.)
As for me, you'll see me doing the walk before every push, and advocating very strongly with my captains that any and all jumpseaters should be warmly welcomed onboard our aircraft. This is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen happen here and I've been here for just about 6 years now. I hope this gets resolved promptly, with minimal aggravation to any and all of us.
See you on the line.
10-13-2019, 07:10 PM
#550
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,202
Being an RAH pilot I completely agree with all of your sentiments and convictions. I have commuted out of a UAL hub for a number of years with a majority of it sitting in a United jumpseat. Professionalism, courtesy, and reciprocity has resulted in new golfing buddies, letters of rec, and a meet and greet. One day it would be nice to drive to work, just like yourself.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot. Our elected officials and their appointed committee members have asked us to stand in unity on this matter. Unfortunately UALPA has played the card of threatening career progression for anyone standing in unity with our brothers and sisters. Frankly it seems like Union Busting 101 and is disappointing.
As a commuter I don’t want to deny anyone the jumpseat and I hope it never comes to that, but rest assured there would be a professional conversation with my ID clearly visible. I purposefully left out my opinions and will leave it to our Executive Board/MEC to sort it out. But you seeming like a person of principals and level headedness I hope there is some common ground with many of us on the other side.
The only problem is my union, along with two other pilot groups, fired the first shot. Our elected officials and their appointed committee members have asked us to stand in unity on this matter. Unfortunately UALPA has played the card of threatening career progression for anyone standing in unity with our brothers and sisters. Frankly it seems like Union Busting 101 and is disappointing.
As a commuter I don’t want to deny anyone the jumpseat and I hope it never comes to that, but rest assured there would be a professional conversation with my ID clearly visible. I purposefully left out my opinions and will leave it to our Executive Board/MEC to sort it out. But you seeming like a person of principals and level headedness I hope there is some common ground with many of us on the other side.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
