Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-13-2019, 10:11 PM
#621
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Just want to chime in and say that, if the chart that 1257 posted in the SkyWest page (UAL and Jumpseats, page 23) is accurate, and priority when operating on Non-Exclusive flights has remained the same as it was before, then it matches our current FOM priority. So no FOM issue regarding priority, if that's the case.
10-13-2019, 10:32 PM
#622
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 327
An interesting point. You lose me at violating the FOM though. You seem like you may be working for the union so I hope for a reasonable explanation. I update my manuals before every trip. How can I possibly be violating my FOM when it specifically states that I can carry UA people?
You can contact the IBT through phone/email and they will be more than helpful in explaining all your concerns.
The crew would ONLY be violating the FOM if you chose to allow UAL/UAX ‘preferred’ pilots on board the aircraft under a JS listing. This is essentially because the age-old reciprocal agreement made between YX and UA has been amended unilaterally by UALPA. As a result the IBT, along with the executive management at YX have chose to not allow pilots of these carriers on board our aircraft under a JS listing. This is governed under 121.547 specifically. Part 119 certificate holder has the power to do so. The FOM tables do not align with this imposed agreement.
Besides the fact you would be breaking the FAR’s and company policies, why would you even consider allowing JS access to a pilot at one of these carriers with this BS going on?
You wouldn’t mind sh@tting on your peers? The same peers that if this new agreement sticks may be left stranded because they are now given a lower priority rather than an equal shot with everyone else, making commuting that much more stressful.
Do you even commute to begin with?
Are you falling victim to the “name-shame” elementary fear mongering? Afraid you won’t be able to progress with your career?
Are you one of the ones that would rather defy your commuting peers and the union that has your back for your own individual personal gain (we have a name for those types)?
Have some pride in the company you currently work for and the union that represents you.
Last edited by Burt123; 10-13-2019 at 11:07 PM.
10-13-2019, 11:04 PM
#623
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Downwind, headed straight for the rocks, shanghaied aboard the ship of fools.
Posts: 1,128
I’m going to call our POI and ask him. I don’t agree with the union on this issue and the jump seat should be absolutely off limits as a negotiating tool. Shame on them for putting us in this position. And your comment in another thread about those of us feeling this way is equal to us being scabs was ridiculous. You obviously don’t know what a scab is. If I feel strongly that the union is wrong and misbehaving I have a moral obligation to point that out and not fall in line. Blind unthinking obedience to one’s “brothers” often leads to things such as an empowered Nazi Party. While I’ll never cross a picket line and will in fact stand beside you in one, that solidarity doesn’t apply to all union issues. I’ll use my own moral compass and powers of reasoning to decide whether or not the union is right with respect to day to day work issues such as this. In this case UA pilots absolutely have a valid point. It’s madness to me that anyone at RP thinks it’s even remotely fair that we can use priority on one of the other two carriers to bump a UA pilot who listed first for the jump seat at one of those carriers off those flights when we’re commuting to work a UA trip. We should all be OAL on those flights. And if we’re no longer being given any priority on UA then so be it. Rather than flat out denying them how about we just rewrite our agreement and lump them in with OAL as well? Or is that too reasonable and not emotional enough?
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
10-13-2019, 11:09 PM
#624
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Guppy Gear Slinger
Posts: 2,037
I’m going to call our POI and ask him. I don’t agree with the union on this issue and the jump seat should be absolutely off limits as a negotiating tool. Shame on them for putting us in this position. And your comment in another thread about those of us feeling this way is equal to us being scabs was ridiculous. You obviously don’t know what a scab is. If I feel strongly that the union is wrong and misbehaving I have a moral obligation to point that out and not fall in line. Blind unthinking obedience to one’s “brothers” often leads to things such as an empowered Nazi Party. While I’ll never cross a picket line and will in fact stand beside you in one, that solidarity doesn’t apply to all union issues. I’ll use my own moral compass and powers of reasoning to decide whether or not the union is right with respect to day to day work issues such as this. In this case UA pilots absolutely have a valid point. It’s madness to me that anyone at RP thinks it’s even remotely fair that we can use priority on one of the other two carriers to bump a UA pilot who listed first for the jump seat at one those carriers off those flights when we’re commuting to work a UA trip. We should all be OAL on those flights. And if we’re no longer being given any priority on UA then so be it. Rather than flat out denying them how about we just rewrite our agreement and lump them in with OAL as well? Or is that too reasonable and not emotional enough?
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
10-13-2019, 11:29 PM
#625
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 327
I’m going to call our POI and ask him. I don’t agree with the union on this issue and the jump seat should be absolutely off limits as a negotiating tool. Shame on them for putting us in this position. And your comment in another thread about those of us feeling this way is equal to us being scabs was ridiculous. You obviously don’t know what a scab is. If I feel strongly that the union is wrong and misbehaving I have a moral obligation to point that out and not fall in line. Blind unthinking obedience to one’s “brothers” often leads to things such as an empowered Nazi Party. While I’ll never cross a picket line and will in fact stand beside you in one, that solidarity doesn’t apply to all union issues. I’ll use my own moral compass and powers of reasoning to decide whether or not the union is right with respect to day to day work issues such as this. In this case UA pilots absolutely have a valid point. It’s madness to me that anyone at RP thinks it’s even remotely fair that we can use priority on one of the other two carriers to bump a UA pilot who listed first for the jump seat at one of those carriers off those flights when we’re commuting to work a UA trip. We should all be OAL on those flights. And if we’re no longer being given any priority on UA then so be it. Rather than flat out denying them how about we just rewrite our agreement and lump them in with OAL as well? Or is that too reasonable and not emotional enough?
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
So yeah, I think the IBT is wrong in how they’re choosing to handle this and I’m going straight to our Feds for an interpretation.
Your choice to violate the FAR’s AND company procedures and risk termination and certificate action.
10-14-2019, 01:32 AM
#626
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 163
I do not work for the IBT.
You can contact the IBT through phone/email and they will be more than helpful in explaining all your concerns.
The crew would ONLY be violating the FOM if you chose to allow UAL/UAX ‘preferred’ pilots on board the aircraft under a JS listing. This is essentially because the age-old reciprocal agreement made between YX and UA has been amended unilaterally by UALPA. As a result the IBT, along with the executive management at YX have chose to not allow pilots of these carriers on board our aircraft under a JS listing. This is governed under 121.547 specifically. Part 119 certificate holder has the power to do so. The FOM tables do not align with this imposed agreement.
Besides the fact you would be breaking the FAR’s and company policies, why would you even consider allowing JS access to a pilot at one of these carriers with this BS going on?
You wouldn’t mind sh@tting on your peers? The same peers that if this new agreement sticks may be left stranded because they are now given a lower priority rather than an equal shot with everyone else, making commuting that much more stressful.
Do you even commute to begin with?
Are you falling victim to the “name-shame” elementary fear mongering? Afraid you won’t be able to progress with your career?
Are you one of the ones that would rather defy your commuting peers and the union that has your back for your own individual personal gain (we have a name for those types)?
Have some pride in the company you currently work for and the union that represents you.
You can contact the IBT through phone/email and they will be more than helpful in explaining all your concerns.
The crew would ONLY be violating the FOM if you chose to allow UAL/UAX ‘preferred’ pilots on board the aircraft under a JS listing. This is essentially because the age-old reciprocal agreement made between YX and UA has been amended unilaterally by UALPA. As a result the IBT, along with the executive management at YX have chose to not allow pilots of these carriers on board our aircraft under a JS listing. This is governed under 121.547 specifically. Part 119 certificate holder has the power to do so. The FOM tables do not align with this imposed agreement.
Besides the fact you would be breaking the FAR’s and company policies, why would you even consider allowing JS access to a pilot at one of these carriers with this BS going on?
You wouldn’t mind sh@tting on your peers? The same peers that if this new agreement sticks may be left stranded because they are now given a lower priority rather than an equal shot with everyone else, making commuting that much more stressful.
Do you even commute to begin with?
Are you falling victim to the “name-shame” elementary fear mongering? Afraid you won’t be able to progress with your career?
Are you one of the ones that would rather defy your commuting peers and the union that has your back for your own individual personal gain (we have a name for those types)?
Have some pride in the company you currently work for and the union that represents you.
10-14-2019, 03:05 AM
#627
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Position: B777 CA
Posts: 313
If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that there are no POIs at any of these carriers losing any sleep over who has priority on whose jumpseats. Naturally, the “concern” comes from the same pilots who slam on the brakes and come to a complete stop at places like ORD/SFO/IAH/EWR/ATL etc when they receive a call from the cabin that someone is out of his/her seat.... “Skywest 5306, why are you stopped?”....”Umm, we have someone in the LAV”... meanwhile, 7 aircraft and counting are coming to a complete stop for your perceived FOM violation.
Want to deny the jumpseat to UAL/UAL exclusive partner airline pilots? That is your prerogative as the PIC (captain’s authority). You don’t need to hide behind the FOM.
As I peruse this thread, I can’t help but wonder if other professions behave similarly or are we really this unique. I’m glad the traveling public (for the most part) doesn’t read these threads. We (United) plan to hire a ton of pilots this Fall (you should see the daily coming and goings at the FTC in Denver) and beyond. Many will come from our exclusive partner carriers with a sprinkling of others from LCC, other regional carriers and, of course, the military. AA and DL are on track to do similar hiring. United is in a major growth phase. We have and are continuing to address customer service challenges. Morale has never been better here and is getting better each day. My hope is everyone here wanting to fly for United has the opportunity over the next year or so to interview. Those who have bad feelings towards UAL as seen in posts above should apply to the other legacies or LCC. There has been no better time to move upward in your pilot career. I truly hope to see new hires participating in this thread assigned to my trips in the future. Yes, even Skywest and Republic pilots. We are in this together. This conflict will pass and we will all move on. I’m the meantime, I welcome anyone who needs a ride to work to sit on my jumpseat. I always have room for your bags on the 737 and I’ll make sure you are fed if you are hungry and the flight is long enough. The three (or four..ouch) of us can have a good laugh/discussion enroute about this whole thing.
Want to deny the jumpseat to UAL/UAL exclusive partner airline pilots? That is your prerogative as the PIC (captain’s authority). You don’t need to hide behind the FOM.
As I peruse this thread, I can’t help but wonder if other professions behave similarly or are we really this unique. I’m glad the traveling public (for the most part) doesn’t read these threads. We (United) plan to hire a ton of pilots this Fall (you should see the daily coming and goings at the FTC in Denver) and beyond. Many will come from our exclusive partner carriers with a sprinkling of others from LCC, other regional carriers and, of course, the military. AA and DL are on track to do similar hiring. United is in a major growth phase. We have and are continuing to address customer service challenges. Morale has never been better here and is getting better each day. My hope is everyone here wanting to fly for United has the opportunity over the next year or so to interview. Those who have bad feelings towards UAL as seen in posts above should apply to the other legacies or LCC. There has been no better time to move upward in your pilot career. I truly hope to see new hires participating in this thread assigned to my trips in the future. Yes, even Skywest and Republic pilots. We are in this together. This conflict will pass and we will all move on. I’m the meantime, I welcome anyone who needs a ride to work to sit on my jumpseat. I always have room for your bags on the 737 and I’ll make sure you are fed if you are hungry and the flight is long enough. The three (or four..ouch) of us can have a good laugh/discussion enroute about this whole thing.
10-14-2019, 04:39 AM
#628
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 61
Like you paying for every non-rev seat on United and your priority on those United flights will be the same as OAL. You own the “whatever” but we all agree United owns the seats. GL. It’s not going to work out well. This pilot group has never been in step with any issue as it has with this in years. That’s not good for your group.
10-14-2019, 05:06 AM
#629
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
10-14-2019, 05:29 AM
#630
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2019
Posts: 215
ExpressJet recently eliminated UA pilots from our aft FA jumpseat in the FOM. The chief pilot sent out a memo stating UA pilots are NOT permitted in the F/A jumpseat. Did you also know regional pilots flying under the UA brand are below UA employee family members for pass travel? UA pilots keep repeating the same line they need priority on regional flights to support the system. Ok, then passtravel classification for regional employees should be above UA employee family members on all UA/UAX flights. This is about supporting UA flying and I would challenge UA pilots to force this positive change.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
