744ButtonPusher

It’s 100% a catch 22 .. deny her the jumpseat and you bet you will end up a plaintiff in her harassment lawsuit. And before yo say “captain controls the jumpseat” I don’t think a jury will care one iota.. so goood luck !

rickair7777

Actually this is not why pro standards exists... if you call them with an operational safety issue they will quickly bow out and hang up the phone. They can't accept the liability associated with trying to address something like that offline with a talking to, when it might require training, checking, or even grounding. That's why ASAP can direct extra training... the system can't give out free passes without knowing the problem got fixed.

Pro Stans deals with cockpit climate, inter-personal issues, hygiene, toenail clippers, etc.

If I was *really* concerned with something I saw on the JS (stick shaker realm, not five kts slow realm) I would evaluate the crews reaction... 99% would be embrassed and apologetic (I know I would be). I'd let it go at that.

If for some reason the crew didn't seem to care then maybe just maybe I'd tell them to do an asap because I was going to report it via my JS committee. If the union said there was nothing they could do then maybe I'd call the FAA. But now we're just making up extreme hypotheticals.

rickair7777

What's the basis for the lawsuit? CA has a duty to ensure there are no distractions on the flight deck and this person would be simply by existing... don't need a line check by someone who doesn't know my SOP and might not even have a type on the plane. Rightly or wrongly, regardless if it was her hubby or not.

That's for offline. For a UAL JS you could be subject to company sanctions (assuming they'll issue a memo granting her carte blanche indulgence), and maybe civil sanctions for workplace blah, blah, blah.

But my JS is not her workplace. She's quite literally a hitch-hiker with zero standing whatsoever. Only recourse is reciprocal union agreements, not that UAL ALPA is going to be making any waves for her benefit

Nordhavn

Weak men create hard times!

LAXtoDEN

They’re not rumors. Call your rep and find out for yourself.

744ButtonPusher

Like I said, a jury won’t care one iota. Her lawyers will paint the picture of “she reported and safety incident and now she is being blacklisted for it.” It’s a classic case of workplace retaliation. Doesn’t matter if she works for the same airline or not, if you would have let’s any other jumpseater on and not her, it they will see it as discrimination.. but go on believing other wise.

744ButtonPusher

what does this even mean with regards to my post ?

rickair7777

Yes, it does matter. Offline jumpseaters are not a protected class. There is no constitutional right or law that every person has to treat every other person exactly the same in all circumstances. Despite what some folks may have felt entitled to in their youth.

That's like suing someone because they failed to invite you to their party on Sat night. That's not fair right? I mean they invited OTHER people

That only exists in specifically legislated cases, of which there is getting to be a fairly large number these days but again "notorious offline jumpseater" is not a protected class at least not yet.

She would actually end up paying the defendent's legal fees because such a case would be quite clearly frivolous, and it would never get to a jury.

You can do an experiment... try to randomly sue someone for some made up perceived personal slight with no basis in the law and see what happens (hint: bring your checkbook).

744ButtonPusher

Good luck !

2StgTurbine

How about before we start a jumpseat war or treat someone like they are on the scab list, how about we wait for all the facts to come out? SWA, United, and ALPA are absolutely on the case. 9 times out of 10, the first story isn't correct. Do you remember the United pilot who got thrown under the bus for exposing himself at the DEN Westin? By the time all the facts came out, it was a much different story.