The Great Jumpseat War of 2019

Acrofox said:
I am very satisfied with the new jumpseat agreement, and glad UAL MEC came to the table.

Very happy to have my UAL brethren and sistren back on the jumpseat.

1. FAA / company “must ride.”
2. Own metal
3. Own metal dx
4. UAL/UAX by TOC
5. UAL/UAX DX / OAL pilots (TOC)
6. OAL DX
etc.
Click to expand...
Only applies on UAX non exclusive carriers...UAL gets the priority they wanted on their metal and UAX-E. So this list only applies on GoJet, Skywest, Republic and Mesa metal...

Also, why weren't they in the jumpseat the last week? FOM was never changed so not allowing them in the jump was a violation of the FOM...
 
Seggy said:
We just got an updated Pilot Bulletin.

I just want to emphasize again that the priority Skywest and RAH got was what they were offered two weeks ago.
Click to expand...
The "authorized United personnel" got replaced by "must ride"
That's the claimed win. UAL can no longer deadhead their pilots on fancy 175 jumpseats. Not that they ever did or would, but hey, gotta claim a win somehow.
 
SAPA also said this was an agreement in principle. So if it’s not an official agreement then shouldn’t SAPA still be saying we could face certificate action for taking these jumpseaters until it’s an official agreement?
 
Cory Trevor said:
SAPA also said this was an agreement in principle. So if it’s not an official agreement then shouldn’t SAPA still be saying we could face certificate action for taking these jumpseaters until it’s an official agreement?
Click to expand...
No FOM change...
 
BigZ said:
The "authorized United personnel" got replaced by "must ride"
That's the claimed win. UAL can no longer deadhead their pilots on fancy 175 jumpseats. Not that they ever did or would, but hey, gotta claim a win somehow.
Click to expand...

I've only ever seen skywest guys try and take the JS while on a DH. Every time I have seen that I have scolded them for doing such. I dont care if it gets another pax or non-rev on just dont do it...
 
Derg said:
So basically if they had just signed the damn agreement they could have avoided the spectacle altogether. I would recall SAPA leadership.
Click to expand...
The initial agreement they proposed had UAL and UAX exclusive riding at a higher priority than UAX non-exclusive on UAX non-exclusive flights. It had “Approved United Personnel” riding as must-rides, UAL dispatchers before UAX (non-exclusive) pilots, etc.

Own metal, then UAL/UAX (TOC) is what the agreement was before this fiasco, and that’s what we’ve agreed to.

If people are saying that the only line changed is the “must ride” line, then they are unaware of why OO and the other non-exclusive UAX carriers rejected the proposal.

This is not the first round of this discussion... There are lots of angry posts from every time this gets brought up. It certainly wasn’t out of the blue.

-Fox
 
tcco94 said:
Only applies on UAX non exclusive carriers...UAL gets the priority they wanted on their metal and UAX-E. So this list only applies on GoJet, Skywest, Republic and Mesa metal...
Click to expand...

I see you are confused... but with how much RABBLE RABBLE there's been, it's not surprising.

United can dictate priority on its own jumpseat, and it's expected that they will. They can take UAX exclusive first. The issue was never what happened on UAL or UAX-exclusive jumpseats... the issue was that they wanted the gate agents to send US jumpseaters based on that new priority, when we never agreed to those terms.

This walks the jumpseat agreement back to more or less how it was before this whole fiasco.

I really do think that SAPA did a poor job of communicating this clearly, and that everyone else was so busy screaming that they weren't paying attention to what they were screaming about. I strongly dislike the fact that we went straight to denying jumpseats, and would have preferred pushing UAL and UAL exclusive pilots to the bottom of the stack behind all other jumpseaters instead. But if people would just listen and THEN react instead of skipping the first step, it would have led to a lot less screaming.

Also, why weren't they in the jumpseat the last week? FOM was never changed so not allowing them in the jump was a violation of the FOM...
Click to expand...

I'm sick of hearing the term FOM violation. It's been used as a scare tactic by both sides, and neither is right.

-Fox
 
Acrofox said:
The initial agreement they proposed had UAL and UAX exclusive riding at a higher priority than UAX non-exclusive on UAX non-exclusive flights. It had “Approved United Personnel” riding as must-rides, UAL dispatchers before UAX (non-exclusive) pilots, etc.
Click to expand...

That is blatantly false. This was the priority that Skywest and RAH could have agreed to a few weeks ago and sign on like GoJets.

a3bf18a4e5bf2299a51140df81a7a1b5.plist
e28279e8c70d4fd92c42f22bf44e75b7.plist
2673451dbbfea3591e56a88334ab85e1.plist





Own metal, then UAL/UAX (TOC) is what the agreement was before this fiasco, and that’s what we’ve agreed to.
Click to expand...

Skywest and RAH denied pilots jumpseater and made a lot of noise to be in the same spot they were two weeks ago.

If people are saying that the only line changed is the “must ride” line, then they are unaware of why OO and the other non-exclusive UAX carriers rejected the proposal.

This is not the first round of this discussion... There are lots of angry posts from every time this gets brought up. It certainly wasn’t out of the blue.

-Fox
Click to expand...

I am fully aware there is no change to what was offered to Skywest and RAH two weeks ago.
 
Acrofox said:
United can dictate priority on its own jumpseat, and it's expected that they will. They can take UAX exclusive first. The issue was never what happened on UAL or UAX-exclusive jumpseats... the issue was that they wanted the gate agents to send US jumpseaters based on that new priority, when we never agreed to those terms.
Click to expand...

No actually United gate agents have been trained for years to clear everyone and let the Captain of the operating flight figure it out. That was going to be the same way under any change to the priority.

This walks the jumpseat agreement back to more or less how it was before this whole fiasco.
Click to expand...

Nope, see chart above.
 
I'm not following what you're putting down, Fox. It appears you had a side decided from the beginning and want to trust that story being told to us. When the story changed and had no proof besides "why would we lie to you?"

I was literally told by 2 reps on my comment (in a very demeaning unprofessional manner I might add) that we never had the option to sign with GoJet. It was never offered. 5 hours later Aric comes out and admits we had the option but declined to sign in an email? How am I supposed to trust anymore from "my side" at that point....? Furthermore the lack of explanation, communication, manual revision but scare tactics? If our side of the story was the truth why were they so persistent in threatening my certificate and having FO'S know they are responsible too (to try and not allow us to do it) yet give us literally nothing to back it up........

How many times have we been told something only to have it not happen, blow off into space, get ignored, etc.... I can think of policy changes...pay packages... The list goes on and on. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
 
Acrofox said:
I see you are confused... but with how much RABBLE RABBLE there's been, it's not surprising.

United can dictate priority on its own jumpseat, and it's expected that they will. They can take UAX exclusive first. The issue was never what happened on UAL or UAX-exclusive jumpseats... the issue was that they wanted the gate agents to send US jumpseaters based on that new priority, when we never agreed to those terms.

This walks the jumpseat agreement back to more or less how it was before this whole fiasco.

I really do think that SAPA did a poor job of communicating this clearly, and that everyone else was so busy screaming that they weren't paying attention to what they were screaming about. I strongly dislike the fact that we went straight to denying jumpseats, and would have preferred pushing UAL and UAL exclusive pilots to the bottom of the stack behind all other jumpseaters instead. But if people would just listen and THEN react instead of skipping the first step, it would have led to a lot less screaming.



I'm sick of hearing the term FOM violation. It's been used as a scare tactic by both sides, and neither is right.

-Fox
Click to expand...
swing and a miss, i see you fell for the student council propaganda...as proven by @Seggy already.
 
tcco94 said:
I'm not following what you're putting down, Fox. It appears you had a side decided from the beginning and want to trust that story being told to us. When the story changed and had no proof besides "why would we lie to you?"

I was literally told by 2 reps on my comment (in a very demeaning unprofessional manner I might add) that we never had the option to sign with GoJet. It was never offered. 5 hours later Aric comes out and admits we had the option but declined to sign in an email? How am I supposed to trust anymore from "my side" at that point....? Furthermore the lack of explanation, communication, manual revision but scare tactics? If our side of the story was the truth why were they so persistent in threatening my certificate and having FO'S know they are responsible too (to try and not allow us to do it) yet give us literally nothing to back it up........

How many times have we been told something only to have it not happen, blow off into space, get ignored, etc.... I can think of policy changes...pay packages... The list goes on and on. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact Skywest was given an opportunity to sign on like GoJet was, weeks ago, after a lengthy heads up this was coming. Same with RAH...
 
“ It is important to remember that the UALMEC demanded that they be given first priority on all UAX flights. This agreement does not allow that”

Straight from the self-congratulatory e-mail from SAPA
At best this is misinformation and it’s worst straight up lying
 
After more than one year of unnecessary delays, Mesa, Republic, and SkyWest have finally signed their new reciprocal jumpseat agreements. We now have signed reciprocal jumpseat agreements with all eight of our UAX partners.

The priorities listed in the Oct 18 Flt Ops Bulletins 19-199 and 19-200 recognize the new agreements by moving these three carriers from "other airline" into the "non-exclusive UAX" category. This is the exact same category agreement these non-exclusive UAX carriers were originally offered.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top