The Great Jumpseat War of 2019

Derg said:
Keep talking about it just like you’re doing.

Sadly, it sounds like SAPA went rogue and it’s tarnishing the name of a lot of great pilots because of some very loose language and a kindergarten-level assessment of the situation at hand. The more people talk about it, the more SAPA gets isolated and it will bring them back to clean up the language and get back on course.
Click to expand...


Is SAPA even a legitimate thing? I mean do they really have actual power in terms of enforcement, litigation, appeals, etc?
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
No.
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember XJT pilots suing over that once and being told they didn’t have standing on the issue (plainly, they didn’t). The question of the legitimacy of their actions, as far as I know, has not been tested judicially. It should be, for a bunch of reasons - but it would have to be a SkyWest pilot, and a well-heeled one at that, financially, who tests it.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Oh, whatever. More like actually trying to understand and fix the damn issue.
Click to expand...

I've met numerous DL pilots here in the western meeca. Just had simple conversations and they gave me their number and email and said stay in touch. Keep me abreast to your progress. Hang in there. Stick with it. Will these chance meetings assure me of getting to DL. No, but every little bit counts. And I'm grateful that based upon my short interactions with them, they gave me (a total stranger) their trust and personal info and said stay in touch.
 
Derg said:
Keep talking about it just like you’re doing.

Sadly, it sounds like SAPA went rogue and it’s tarnishing the name of a lot of great pilots because of some very loose language and a kindergarten-level assessment of the situation at hand. The more people talk about it, the more SAPA gets isolated and it will bring them back to clean up the language and get back on course.
Click to expand...

Yep, even if their side of the story is true (that they weren’t invited to the meeting and their calls were not returned) this is not the solution. I don’t understand why they don’t understand that there is no endgame here that ends well for us.

It may be getting more interesting as there are murmurs of a FOM or FOIB change that would make it harder to not interpret allowing access as a violation. Really hoping those are just mumblings as I can’t fathom a representative body as making it easier to get a pilot violated (even if they are going against the direction of the representative leadership).
 
We are less than 24 hours away from the "war" and I've been ignored on Facebook/forums about how this is an FOM violation unless they change and update the FOM.

Literally being ignored over 10+ times. Yet when someone calls out SAPA for disagreement and don't like them they pounce within an hour.

This was so unprepared for and cornering us + our First Officers into scare tactics, which based on how our FOM is currently written it would actually be a violation to DENY UAL a jumpseat not for the merit of safety (but this little war they want). It's ridiculous! If we already weren't an embarrassment to many for not having legal representation, this is a newsflash. Company funded representation with no legal backup is a disaster and I can't believe it's used as a recruitment tool. I am often not upset at my airline and a very go with the flow guy but this is absolutely ridiculous what is being asked of me and my counterparts.
 
BrettInLJ said:
Yep, even if their side of the story is true (that they weren’t invited to the meeting and their calls were not returned) this is not the solution. I don’t understand why they don’t understand that there is no endgame here that ends well for us.

It may be getting more interesting as there are murmurs of a FOM or FOIB change that would make it harder to not interpret allowing access as a violation. Really hoping those are just mumblings as I can’t fathom a representative body as making it easier to get a pilot violated (even if they are going against the direction of the representative leadership).
Click to expand...

Are the lifers taking you down with their ship of regret purposely, or is their sense of importance so miscalibrated that they actually believe this is a good idea?
 
tcco94 said:
We are less than 24 hours away from the "war" and I've been ignored on Facebook/forums about how this is an FOM violation unless they change and update the FOM.

Literally being ignored over 10+ times. Yet when someone calls out SAPA for disagreement and don't like them they pounce within an hour.

This was so unprepared for and cornering us + our First Officers into scare tactics, which based on how our FOM is currently written it would actually be a violation to DENY UAL a jumpseat not for the merit of safety (but this little war they want). It's ridiculous! If we already weren't an embarrassment to many for not having legal representation, this is a newsflash. Company funded representation with no legal backup is a disaster and I can't believe it's used as a recruitment tool. I am often not upset at my airline and a very go with the flow guy but this is absolutely ridiculous what is being asked of me and my counterparts.
Click to expand...
By SAPA’s logic, the agreements with Delta/EDV are not reciprocal and everyone who’s taken a Delta or EDV jumpseater has violated the FOM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bp
roundout said:
Are the lifers taking you down with their ship of regret purposely, or is their sense of importance so miscalibrated that they actually believe this is a good idea?
Click to expand...

Given the threatening posts on FB from SAPA "leadership" and certain lifers making disparaging comments directed towards anyone who expresses any doubt about whether this is a good idea (including one fairly senior captain who called out anyone that doesn't fully support SAPA and labeled them as a SCAB), I would say yes. In fact, I would go on to say that the lifers/SAPA have truly decided that they've been wronged to the point where they're not only willing to fall on their own sword in defiance of evil bad UA, but that they're willing to drive a rather derisive wedge among their own pilot group to prove their point that we've been wronged so egregiously as to justify a jumpseat war.

Which is extremely curious to me. When ever management changes the rules or comes out with a reinterpretation of policy in a detrimental way, SAPA collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane. Yet United pilots change the rules on jumpseats on planes not flown by OO, and all of a sudden it's time to go straight for the big red button and launch the nukes. It's curious the somewhat strained analogies being used to justify denying the jumpseat, but none of them seem to justify what SAPA has done.

Perhaps it's time to invest in some tin foil head wear, but I cannot shake the feeling that this entire "crisis" has been engineered both as a means of deterring any interest in the ongoing ALPA drive (I firmly believe the mis-labeling this as the actions of UALPA was intentional) as well as asserting the dominance of the old timers. Remember, 50% of the pilots at SkyWest have 3 years or less on property. And most of those guys did not come here with the intent of staying for the next 30-40 years. There's a demographic shift occurring among the majority of SkyWest pilots (in a lot of aspects from age, commuter status, career goals, etc) and I firmly believe that a good number of the old timers feel threatened by this change because there's an ever increasing amount of requests for changes to the way things have always been done, and we all know how much pilots like change.

I get it, SAPA's upset that we're gonna get slightly lower priority on UAL and UAX Exclusive carriers. It's a change and not as generous as what we had, but it's still light years better than the way we get treated on AAL (we're always lumped in with all the other airlines, we have no preference what so ever) or Alaska (I'm not 100% certain but I've heard tales that we are bottom barrel there too but I never jump on them so I've never confirmed it). But quite honestly, of all the jump seat and non-rev issues facing the SkyWest pilot group, this literally isn't in the top 10 of important issues SAPA needs to fix, all of which have been told to them but which get no response or action.

Still haven't seen the supposed letter that I'm told I need to give to UA/UAX Exclusive pilots when I'm supposed to deny them the jumpseat starting tomorrow. I'm seriously considering printing my own, but it feels like an awful waste of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper to simply print the words "welcome aboard" on it.
 
n156499000 said:
Given the threatening posts on FB from SAPA "leadership" and certain lifers making disparaging comments directed towards anyone who expresses any doubt about whether this is a good idea (including one fairly senior captain who called out anyone that doesn't fully support SAPA and labeled them as a SCAB), I would say yes. In fact, I would go on to say that the lifers/SAPA have truly decided that they've been wronged to the point where they're not only willing to fall on their own sword in defiance of evil bad UA, but that they're willing to drive a rather derisive wedge among their own pilot group to prove their point that we've been wronged so egregiously as to justify a jumpseat war.

Which is extremely curious to me. When ever management changes the rules or comes out with a reinterpretation of policy in a detrimental way, SAPA collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane. Yet United pilots change the rules on jumpseats on planes not flown by OO, and all of a sudden it's time to go straight for the big red button and launch the nukes. It's curious the somewhat strained analogies being used to justify denying the jumpseat, but none of them seem to justify what SAPA has done.

Perhaps it's time to invest in some tin foil head wear, but I cannot shake the feeling that this entire "crisis" has been engineered both as a means of deterring any interest in the ongoing ALPA drive (I firmly believe the mis-labeling this as the actions of UALPA was intentional) as well as asserting the dominance of the old timers. Remember, 50% of the pilots at SkyWest have 3 years or less on property. And most of those guys did not come here with the intent of staying for the next 30-40 years. There's a demographic shift occurring among the majority of SkyWest pilots (in a lot of aspects from age, commuter status, career goals, etc) and I firmly believe that a good number of the old timers feel threatened by this change because there's an ever increasing amount of requests for changes to the way things have always been done, and we all know how much pilots like change.

I get it, SAPA's upset that we're gonna get slightly lower priority on UAL and UAX Exclusive carriers. It's a change and not as generous as what we had, but it's still light years better than the way we get treated on AAL (we're always lumped in with all the other airlines, we have no preference what so ever) or Alaska (I'm not 100% certain but I've heard tales that we are bottom barrel there too but I never jump on them so I've never confirmed it). But quite honestly, of all the jump seat and non-rev issues facing the SkyWest pilot group, this literally isn't in the top 10 of important issues SAPA needs to fix, all of which have been told to them but which get no response or action.

Still haven't seen the supposed letter that I'm told I need to give to UA/UAX Exclusive pilots when I'm supposed to deny them the jumpseat starting tomorrow. I'm seriously considering printing my own, but it feels like an awful waste of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper to simply print the words "welcome aboard" on it.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most level headed post I’ve read from an affected pilot in the 13 whatever pages of this thread. You can be my wingman any time.
 
n156499000 said:
Given the threatening posts on FB from SAPA "leadership" and certain lifers making disparaging comments directed towards anyone who expresses any doubt about whether this is a good idea (including one fairly senior captain who called out anyone that doesn't fully support SAPA and labeled them as a SCAB), I would say yes. In fact, I would go on to say that the lifers/SAPA have truly decided that they've been wronged to the point where they're not only willing to fall on their own sword in defiance of evil bad UA, but that they're willing to drive a rather derisive wedge among their own pilot group to prove their point that we've been wronged so egregiously as to justify a jumpseat war.

Which is extremely curious to me. When ever management changes the rules or comes out with a reinterpretation of policy in a detrimental way, SAPA collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane. Yet United pilots change the rules on jumpseats on planes not flown by OO, and all of a sudden it's time to go straight for the big red button and launch the nukes. It's curious the somewhat strained analogies being used to justify denying the jumpseat, but none of them seem to justify what SAPA has done.

Perhaps it's time to invest in some tin foil head wear, but I cannot shake the feeling that this entire "crisis" has been engineered both as a means of deterring any interest in the ongoing ALPA drive (I firmly believe the mis-labeling this as the actions of UALPA was intentional) as well as asserting the dominance of the old timers. Remember, 50% of the pilots at SkyWest have 3 years or less on property. And most of those guys did not come here with the intent of staying for the next 30-40 years. There's a demographic shift occurring among the majority of SkyWest pilots (in a lot of aspects from age, commuter status, career goals, etc) and I firmly believe that a good number of the old timers feel threatened by this change because there's an ever increasing amount of requests for changes to the way things have always been done, and we all know how much pilots like change.

I get it, SAPA's upset that we're gonna get slightly lower priority on UAL and UAX Exclusive carriers. It's a change and not as generous as what we had, but it's still light years better than the way we get treated on AAL (we're always lumped in with all the other airlines, we have no preference what so ever) or Alaska (I'm not 100% certain but I've heard tales that we are bottom barrel there too but I never jump on them so I've never confirmed it). But quite honestly, of all the jump seat and non-rev issues facing the SkyWest pilot group, this literally isn't in the top 10 of important issues SAPA needs to fix, all of which have been told to them but which get no response or action.

Still haven't seen the supposed letter that I'm told I need to give to UA/UAX Exclusive pilots when I'm supposed to deny them the jumpseat starting tomorrow. I'm seriously considering printing my own, but it feels like an awful waste of an 8.5" x 11" piece of paper to simply print the words "welcome aboard" on it.
Click to expand...

Now's the time to start a card drive....
 
Autothrust Blue said:
I vaguely remember XJT pilots suing over that once and being told they didn’t have standing on the issue (plainly, they didn’t). The question of the legitimacy of their actions, as far as I know, has not been tested judicially. It should be, for a bunch of reasons - but it would have to be a SkyWest pilot, and a well-heeled one at that, financially, who tests it.
Click to expand...

There are precious few things I ever heard ALPA attorneys express with absolute certainty, no equivocation whatsoever. One of that very small number of things was the assertion that SAPA has absolutely, positively, no legal legitimacy whatsoever.
 
SlumTodd_Millionaire said:
There are precious few things I ever heard ALPA attorneys express with absolute certainty, no equivocation whatsoever. One of that very small number of things was the assertion that SAPA has absolutely, positively, no legal legitimacy whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Sure. I’m even inclined to agree based merely upon my grade school level understanding of RLA

HOWEVER

Since nobody with, you know, actual standing has sued to do something about it, we’ll still get to just wait.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Is SAPA even a legitimate thing? I mean do they really have actual power in terms of enforcement, litigation, appeals, etc?
Click to expand...

It seems all you can talk about is “SAPA ISNT A UNION blah blah blah”. Do you ever add more then that?
Not disagreeing, but you gotta have more then that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top