Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
10-15-2019, 09:30 AM
#941
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 432
While I respect your opinion on the matter, it isn't really semantics. Being wholly owned/majority owned is a big difference in business. If you don't think the difference is important, like I said, I get it. But you need to understand that it is a difference, even if it isn't one you value, and that it isn't the standard. You guys want to push your own, new standard, then by all means do so. But don't paint it as something it isn't, there's enough confusion and misinformation with this whole situation as is.
So yes, while we don’t have wholly owned regionals, our best comparison is UAX exclusive. That is more than reasonable enough to allow United to align their jumpseat priority with other legacies with complex regional dynamics.
10-15-2019, 09:31 AM
#942
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 502
Just want to clarify something. He (SAPA President) generally would be voted in. However, there were only two runners in the last election and one (who really sucked in my opinion and is who UALPA probably communicated with the last few years) dropped out. Which left only one person in the running.
Whether his approach is the right way to go about things or not, I don't think Aric is doing this on behalf of management or anything like that. He's the jumpseat chair as well and is trying to protect the jumpseat priority of the pilots, that's his job. Now, if he's going about it the right way or not, is certainly up for debate.
Whether his approach is the right way to go about things or not, I don't think Aric is doing this on behalf of management or anything like that. He's the jumpseat chair as well and is trying to protect the jumpseat priority of the pilots, that's his job. Now, if he's going about it the right way or not, is certainly up for debate.
10-15-2019, 09:36 AM
#943
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 305
If it helps, I took a huge dump in LAX by the Skywest gates and didn’t flush. Have a great day!
10-15-2019, 09:41 AM
#944
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Looks like the jumpseat order got changed.
Skywest Captain here, at midnight we got an email from the director of flight ops stating that if we don't comply we will be in violation of the FOM and therefore subject to certificate action. Before that I had planed to take any United pilot that showed up, now my hands are tied. This is nothing but bad for me, I expect my United app will end up in the trash and I expect to be denied the JS by other carriers. The majority of my co-workers are totally in opposition of this, we are giving management an earful about this, hopefully they back down.
Your hands are NOT tied. Back in the 90’s UPS (IPA) won a decision against UPS management over a jumpseat war. The FAA’s position remains the “The Captain has unfettered authority” over who sits in the jumpseat.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2012-13290.htm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
10-15-2019, 09:54 AM
#945
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 681
I imagine the expectation from SkyWest is to start hearing that UAL pilots are not making their commutes and there is some level of disruption. If that doesn’t happen SkyWest will not have any leverage to negotiate. So, I imagine at that point they will be suspect that pilots are choosing to ignore the FOM. That, I suspect, could lead to some sort of crackdown.
So, if I am facing disciplinary action for not following the FOM, who will stand up for me? I would love to work for UAL some day. Will UAL stand up for me?
10-15-2019, 09:58 AM
#946
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Your hands are NOT tied. Back in the 90’s UPS (IPA) won a decision against UPS management over a jumpseat war. The FAA’s position remains the “The Captain has unfettered authority” over who sits in the jumpseat.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2012-13290.htm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2012-13290.htm
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"In contrast with Sec. Sec. 121.547(a)(1) and (a)(2),
admission to the flight deck under either Sec. Sec. 121.547(a)(3) or
(a)(4) requires prior permission from the PIC, the FAA Administrator
and an appropriate management official of the certificate holder."
admission to the flight deck under either Sec. Sec. 121.547(a)(3) or
(a)(4) requires prior permission from the PIC, the FAA Administrator
and an appropriate management official of the certificate holder."
Accordingly, the PIC has greater
latitude to deny an individual access to the flight deck under
Sec. Sec. 121.547 (a)(3) and (a)(4).
latitude to deny an individual access to the flight deck under
Sec. Sec. 121.547 (a)(3) and (a)(4).
However, to the extent that prior legal interpretations state or
simply imply that air carriers have no ability to question a PIC in
their employ regarding his or her decision to deny flight deck access
to an individual for a reason that is not based on a safety concern, we
believe the agency overstated its position. Accordingly, we propose to
rescind the relevant portions of those prior legal interpretations. The
FAA believes that at an appropriate time and venue, air carriers must
be able to question why a PIC decided to exclude certain individuals
from the flight deck when there was no apparent safety issue.
While, as we have stated above, the PIC is responsible for the
safety of the passengers, crew, cargo and aircraft during flight, we
also hold air carriers responsible for the safe conduct of all aspects
of their operations. See generally 14 CFR part 121. But, limiting air
carriers' ability to manage their workforce, when there is no apparent
risk to aviation safety, is outside the scope of the agency's safety
oversight responsibilities.
simply imply that air carriers have no ability to question a PIC in
their employ regarding his or her decision to deny flight deck access
to an individual for a reason that is not based on a safety concern, we
believe the agency overstated its position. Accordingly, we propose to
rescind the relevant portions of those prior legal interpretations. The
FAA believes that at an appropriate time and venue, air carriers must
be able to question why a PIC decided to exclude certain individuals
from the flight deck when there was no apparent safety issue.
While, as we have stated above, the PIC is responsible for the
safety of the passengers, crew, cargo and aircraft during flight, we
also hold air carriers responsible for the safe conduct of all aspects
of their operations. See generally 14 CFR part 121. But, limiting air
carriers' ability to manage their workforce, when there is no apparent
risk to aviation safety, is outside the scope of the agency's safety
oversight responsibilities.
10-15-2019, 09:59 AM
#947
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 61
Wholly owned or not, we have partners that are specific to United. That’s the closest we will get to wholly owned. That’s our business model but the principal is the same as other legacy airlines that have dedicated regionals that don’t dip around to every other legacy airline. If Commutair or Air Wisconsin are able to pick up DL or AA flying they would rightfully be placed on the next level down.
So yes, while we don’t have wholly owned regionals, our best comparison is UAX exclusive. That is more than reasonable enough to allow United to align their jumpseat priority with other legacies with complex regional dynamics.
So yes, while we don’t have wholly owned regionals, our best comparison is UAX exclusive. That is more than reasonable enough to allow United to align their jumpseat priority with other legacies with complex regional dynamics.
10-15-2019, 10:01 AM
#948
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: right
Posts: 38
It’s not just SAPA that wants this. A change is being made to the FOM. So, SkyWest as a 121 carrier is on board with this. I am a 1 year FO. I just want to do my job, build my experience and be safe.
I imagine the expectation from SkyWest is to start hearing that UAL pilots are not making their commutes and there is some level of disruption. If that doesn’t happen SkyWest will not have any leverage to negotiate. So, I imagine at that point they will be suspect that pilots are choosing to ignore the FOM. That, I suspect, could lead to some sort of crackdown.
So, if I am facing disciplinary action for not following the FOM, who will stand up for me? I would love to work for UAL some day. Will UAL stand up for me?
I imagine the expectation from SkyWest is to start hearing that UAL pilots are not making their commutes and there is some level of disruption. If that doesn’t happen SkyWest will not have any leverage to negotiate. So, I imagine at that point they will be suspect that pilots are choosing to ignore the FOM. That, I suspect, could lead to some sort of crackdown.
So, if I am facing disciplinary action for not following the FOM, who will stand up for me? I would love to work for UAL some day. Will UAL stand up for me?
No one at Skywest will tell you the truth about labor law or Captain’s authority.
10-15-2019, 10:02 AM
#949
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 279
Oh wait...because it isn't the same thing.
Again, if you want to push for this new way, then by all means. But it by definition is not the same.
10-15-2019, 10:04 AM
#950
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 893
Aric wants a win, he hasn’t had any. SAPA needs something to say they stood up for something. This won’t be it. This screwed the pooch BIG time. If I were Skywest management, I’d be ****ed at their offshoot branch SAPA right now. They probably got the ball rolling on getting a union in to Skywest.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
