Hawker445

Industry standard is having Mainline, Mainline dispatchers, exclusive pilots, above Gojet and SkyWest on a republic UAX?

Yeah no thanks

symbian simian

So because UAL has a few scabs we should treat everyone at UAL as a scab? Do you realize what you just said? Just because a couple of lifers at SKW didn't sign the new policy, and the pilots had ZERO say in that, everyone should be punished. Of course they need to be pushed towards a card drive, but I don't think you're doing it right.

shrsailplanes

I don’t understand this question. Are you saying Skywest did this to make their pilots disqualified for any job other than with Skywest?

1257

No. Part of this issue is people don't even know what they're arguing about.

On a RAH aircraft, after signed, RAH would be first, then RAH dispatchers, then all UAL/UAX, then OAL based on time of check-in.

UAL and Jumpseats

Bravix

Clarification, I don't believe that's how it works. Non-exclusive carrier flights will still be:

1. Own metal
2. UAL/UAL Express TOC
3. OAL.

That's what the chart that has been posted around shows, at least. I've yet to see anything official from ALPA. If someone could point in the right direciton to something that isn't just a basic Excel table screenshot, that'd be cool.

1257

The chart I posted is from ALPA.

Gone Flying

while it is easy to say that, history lessons taught to me by the previous generation of pilots has taught me to pay attention to details. during UAL BK when you had an awful scope Clause shoved down your throat, you were assured the CRJ 700 would be the largest 70 seater, magically they were able to add much heavier E170s because of a loophole. same with Aer Lingus flying IAD-MAD as a codeshare. loopholes should never be overlooked and unless there is official clarification I can see this is a massive loophole for the following scenario.

your commuter clause does not have a requirement to be pos space, correct? if a WB CA and an OO pilot are competing for an OO JS and united really wants that CA there because they are out of reserves they could make him a must ride on our JS. What if a chief pilot wants to take the last flight of the night and magically is able to call in and make himself a must ride. I have not seen anything OFFICIAL saying otherwise. (plenty on here but nothing from SAPA or UAL management) if SAPA has the answer and is not sharing that is on them, but right now we have not seen anything contractual that would prevent the above scenarios ( contractual between UAL and SKW, not your pilot contract). also FWIW this would be the only JS agreement we have that places any non OO employee( not a fed) ahead of any OO pilot for an OO jumpseat.

Bravix

UALPA MEC or a different one? No offense if it isn't, just trying to find info from the source that is actually in control of the software. If we had access to an official document to reference, that would help clear up any misunderstandings. Instead of all this secondhand hearsay crap.

TangoIndiaMike1

It’s not “signed”. It just has their sticker and we have been using it for years. So not signed. But still in use with an approved sticker. Like having a verbal agreement to pay rent. Or buying something from a friend but only verbally saying you will pay them. Because if it’s not signed. It does not matter.
Or when your neighbor has a driveway in your yard due to easement rights and no way to get to your house. It’s verbal. No signature.

1257

United ALPA MEC. I'd post the whole blastmail but haven't checked permission to the public.