SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Pinnacle put the same thing in our FOM. It's one of those things that you just ignore. Not a chance in hell that I'm going to report to the company if I deny someone access to my jumpseat.
Non-Union airlines..
- Thread starter meritflyer
- Start date
- Status
Pinnacle put the same thing in our FOM. It's one of those things that you just ignore. Not a chance in hell that I'm going to report to the company if I deny someone access to my jumpseat.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I've always loved you and Emily's just cover and I don't know what I'd do without you in my life....or....was that not what you were looking for....'cause if it wasn't I didn't mean any of it.
Airdale
Well-Known Member
HEY!!! I didn't put words in your mouth dude, I just read what you wrote!! :insane:
Jtrain - Doug, GET A ROOM!!! YOUR A MAKIN ME SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laff: :insane:
Bumblebee
Commodore
Which other FOM items do you ignore?
jynxyjoe
Queso King
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Items that serve no other purpose but intimidation. Examples from Pinnacle: crew comm for fatigue call, crew comm for using commuter policy, calling duty pilot when refusing an airplane for safety reasons, etc...
Bumblebee
Commodore
OK I understand. Things in the FOM you don't consider necessary.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Whatever.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Nice response. I figured that a guy (especially a hat wearing non leather jacketed PROfessional) working for a union house would follow the FOM. Heck, even I, a lowly leather jacketed non-union airline employee can follow our FOM. I at least, don't intentionally disregard the instructions in it.
But at least you think you appear more professional than I do.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I don't submit to intimidation tactics from management, especially when they go against the contract (FOM requirement to submit crew comm for use of commuter clause, for example). If you think that makes me less professional, then so be it.
Bumblebee
Commodore
I can appreciate that you don't follow the FOM for the portions which are in conflict with the hard fought contract negotiated by the union.
Let's stick to the subject matter at hand. You said that you do not follow the policy of your company due to your support of ALPA's contract, yet you act against the advice of ALPA by using the denial of the jumpseat as a weapon.
The FOM establishes the jumpseat as property of the company, yet you determine that you will use it for your own purpose, in violation of company policy. If I am wrong please help me understand.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
The ALPA jumpseat policy has been posted here before. As we discussed then, the policy is intentionally ambiguous in order to give the Captain full leniency in determining who is allowed access to his jumpseat. ALPA doesn't tell Captains what to do with their jumpseats.
This is another example of the FOM being in violation of the contract, not to mention the FARs. Many ALPA contracts contain language that gives full authority of the jumpseat to the Captain. This is why Velo and I are always talking about the jumpseat being a union established benefit. And of course, the FARs give the Captain full authority over his jumpseat also. The jumpseat does not belong to the company. The jumpseat is the Captain's.
Bumblebee
Commodore
OK I get that. I know that if our FOM is in conflict with the FAR's, then the FAR's take precedence.
bareman
Well-Known Member
Just wanted to get a post in on this thread.
I hope you all have the Hap Hap Happiest Christmas since Bing Crosby tap danced with Danny #*@& Kaye
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Oooookay. Seems I got a bit of splainin' to do.
To all present Colgan pilots, if you took this post (quoted above) to mean that I consider you a scab, I apologize. That was not was I intended to say. I still think it reads either way (intended or unintended) but I can clearly see where the reader can see it either way.
A simple edit'll fix this.
"People are getting wise. Colgan Air might well beCOME the new generation of scabs."
Future tense there, I was usin'. Guess after a bottle of wine I don't convey my point as well as I like.
I'm also not saying, by ANY means, that ALL Colgan pilots would scab. I do however think a fairly large number would. I also think that if that were to happen, the CJC pilot group would become known collectively as a group of scabs. The CJC pilots that did the right thing would have to identify themselves by name and employee number in later situations to ensure they weren't treated like scabs.
Hope this clarifies my stance on the situation to anybody readin'. It was intended as a warning to the CJC pilots that don't consider the long-term effects of their choices on the industry- because I think this really will come to that.
Once again, sorry if I offended anybody unnecessarily.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
- Status