The Great Jumpseat War of 2019

Is it cool for everyone if I make it easy on myself and just deny everyone the jumpseat? Doesn’t matter if it’s united, delta, fedex, Great Lakes, Norwegian, NASA, etc...

Seriously though now sounds like a great time to take a LOA, good luck commuting everyone and may the non-rev loads be ever in your favor.
 
ProtegePilot said:
Is it cool for everyone if I make it easy on myself and just deny everyone the jumpseat? Doesn’t matter if it’s united, delta, fedex, Great Lakes, Norwegian, NASA, etc...

Seriously though now sounds like a great time to take a LOA, good luck commuting everyone and may the non-rev loads be ever in your favor.
Click to expand...
Hehe, I'm always OAL. Roll the dice baby.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
SteveC said:
What is “OAL”?
Click to expand...
Other AirLines

As mentioned, Mesa, SkyWest and Republic were displaced to that (4th tier) priority on UALs list due to not having agreed to be on the 3rd tier UAX non-exclusive with GoJet

That list is still more favorable than what's used at AA
1. AA
2. Envoy/PSA/Piedmont
3. OAL
Very recently Republic tried to carve itself out a spot at 2.5 as Eagle non-exclusive, but somehow it's not OK on UAL list. I believe it's perhaps due to the creation of UAX-exclusive tier one step above, which wasn't there before but someone from RAH might have a better idea.

One thing that complicates non-Envoy/PSA/PDT side of Eagle is that contract regional pilots can buy into AA non-rev benefits, allowing them priority below AAG employees, but above buddy passes. With that, AA or Eagle pilot is automatically placed in a cue for the jumpseat if there are no seats in the back, and contract regional pilot would have to relist for JS, as their purchased priority only covers non-revving in the back.
Including the JS in that priority tier was the substance if the recent RAH "uprising". Said event did not fly well with some at AA/EAG, as RAH in essence said they will not be honoring the current listing/priority system.
 
Ok, sure...

E643D647-1B86-49BE-B8B1-D263260049BC.jpeg
 
I can only share what the union shares with me. Don't know what else to tell you.
 
JordanD said:
Oh, I base that on nothing other than good luck getting the average OO pilot to disassociate this with ALPA. They all think this is ALPA's doing or the snarky anti union guys are all going on about how this is ALPA's fault or why isn't ALPA doing anything.
Click to expand...

Based on what I am seeing it’s about the same percentage that can’t get their heads around the structure of ALPA and the independence of a particular carrier’s MEC vs. ALPA national.

This is definitely not helping the movement but that common misconception is something that is an obstacle to getting ALPA on property regardless of this jumpseat issue.
 
Twice I’ve had a UA gate agent try to take JS from me on my own metal and give it to a UA Pilot. The current unpleasantness has been building for a while.
One GA was a real SOB.
I had already talked to the captain who was working the flight, said “sure sent him down we’ll have a good discussion on JS agreements before I send him back up the jetway.”
 
So now that I'm done ferrying United Jumpseaters SFO-DFW-SFO for the day for my "little dirtbag regional," let me address a few things:
  1. SkyWest has had a reciprocal jumpseat agreement with UAL since the dawn of time.
  2. Our FOM has a priority list as per that agreement.
  3. United pilots have been trying to grab priority on UAX carriers for a long time, because they feel entitled to it. This has been happening at least back to 2008.
  4. This is the second time THIS YEAR this issue has come up. (The first was in May—see below)
  5. Previous times throughout the past decades, all the UAX carriers told UA to go pound sand on this issue. Now that the UAX "exclusive" carriers have been offered a bump in priority, they have agreed.
  6. I have personally read through the section of the UAL flight ops manual that deals with jumpseat priority while commuting. It matched, at the time, the priority list that's been posted around a lot—UAL, UAL dispatchers, UAL test pilots, UAX (TOC), UAX dispatchers, OAL.
  7. There are many people trying to mischaracterize the issue, and I find the UAL MEC's response to be absolutely full of lies and lies by omission.
  8. ALPA skywest jumpseat priority uax - Google Search is a link to a simple google search that shows the extant priority. You can look at the different versions throughout the years and see the changes as carriers consolidated and sprung up and vanished. There is a clear, long record of the history of UAL/UAX jumpseat priority.
Thus, the following arguments are either lies, lies by omission, or half-truths:
  • "It's always been this way, we're just making the computer enforce it now" is a lie. Ample citations available with a simple google search.
  • "United is trying to prevent abuses by UAX carriers who are getting priority ahead of them." This is a half-truth. See below.
  • "They also claim that the UAL MEC has been officially notified of their upcoming actions. This is patently false." is a lie.
  • "We have not had any communication with IBT since last December or SAPA since last September when they last threatened to disrupt the United operation." is a lie. In their own words: "All eight of our UAX carriers were given new reciprocal jumpseat agreements to sign on May 14, 2019." This issue was raised extensively then (See #4 and many more.)
  • "When we began to research this issue, we discovered that documented jumpseat agreements did not exist between United and the UAX airlines." is a lie.
  • "Due to this failure to sign, these three carriers technically do not have a reciprocal jumpseat agreement with United Airlines." is misleading, at best. Possibly a lie.
  • "This is contrary to the recent information sent out by the IBT and SAPA. Instead of cutting them off completely, as some believe we should, they were afforded the courtesy of being categorized and prioritized as "other airline."" this is extremely manipulative. It makes it sound like a courtesy that they pushed our priority down to the bottom.
We either have a reciprocal jumpseat agreement or we don't. If we don't, then we clearly can't take UAL pilots on the jumpseat.

I really could go on at great length, but I'm trying to be succinct.
 
Acrofox said:
So now that I'm done ferrying United Jumpseaters SFO-DFW-SFO for the day for my "little dirtbag regional," let me address a few things:
  1. SkyWest has had a reciprocal jumpseat agreement with UAL since the dawn of time.
  2. Our FOM has a priority list as per that agreement.
  3. United pilots have been trying to grab priority on UAX carriers for a long time, because they feel entitled to it. This has been happening at least back to 2008.
  4. This is the second time THIS YEAR this issue has come up. (The first was in May—see below)
  5. Previous times throughout the past decades, all the UAX carriers told UA to go pound sand on this issue. Now that the UAX "exclusive" carriers have been offered a bump in priority, they have agreed.
  6. I have personally read through the section of the UAL flight ops manual that deals with jumpseat priority while commuting. It matched, at the time, the priority list that's been posted around a lot—UAL, UAL dispatchers, UAL test pilots, UAX (TOC), UAX dispatchers, OAL.
  7. There are many people trying to mischaracterize the issue, and I find the UAL MEC's response to be absolutely full of lies and lies by omission.
  8. ALPA skywest jumpseat priority uax - Google Search is a link to a simple google search that shows the extant priority. You can look at the different versions throughout the years and see the changes as carriers consolidated and sprung up and vanished. There is a clear, long record of the history of UAL/UAX jumpseat priority.
Thus, the following arguments are either lies, lies by omission, or half-truths:
  • "It's always been this way, we're just making the computer enforce it now" is a lie. Ample citations available with a simple google search.
  • "United is trying to prevent abuses by UAX carriers who are getting priority ahead of them." This is a half-truth. See below.
  • "They also claim that the UAL MEC has been officially notified of their upcoming actions. This is patently false." is a lie.
  • "We have not had any communication with IBT since last December or SAPA since last September when they last threatened to disrupt the United operation." is a lie. In their own words: "All eight of our UAX carriers were given new reciprocal jumpseat agreements to sign on May 14, 2019." This issue was raised extensively then (See #4 and many more.)
  • "When we began to research this issue, we discovered that documented jumpseat agreements did not exist between United and the UAX airlines." is a lie.
  • "Due to this failure to sign, these three carriers technically do not have a reciprocal jumpseat agreement with United Airlines." is misleading, at best. Possibly a lie.
  • "This is contrary to the recent information sent out by the IBT and SAPA. Instead of cutting them off completely, as some believe we should, they were afforded the courtesy of being categorized and prioritized as "other airline."" this is extremely manipulative. It makes it sound like a courtesy that they pushed our priority down to the bottom.
We either have a reciprocal jumpseat agreement or we don't. If we don't, then we clearly can't take UAL pilots on the jumpseat.

I really could go on at great length, but I'm trying to be succinct.
Click to expand...
Two sides to every story.

What exactly does the jumpseat agreement you posted supply to your argument other than the fact that you are both allowed to occupy each other’s jumpseat?
 
AAPalmTree said:
Two sides to every story.

What exactly does the jumpseat agreement you posted supply to your argument other than the fact that you are both allowed to occupy each other’s jumpseat?
Click to expand...
Fair question. However, the "company regulations and procedures" cited in the second bullet point include our FOM, which lays out the specific jumpseat priority for UAX flights. They also happen to match basically every previous permutation of the UAL jumpseat priority that's floating around out there.

Recall that I didn't post the jumpseat agreement to argue its content, but rather to refute the statement that UAL 'discovered' that we had no reciprocal agreement.

Let me be clear—personally, I would prefer the following jumpseat priority for everybody:
Own metal
Reciprocal OAL (time of checkin)
CASS OAL (Captain's discretion)

I think priority games are one giant pissing match, and a recipe for divisiveness—excellent for driving wedges between pilots. But in this case, the initial action was taken by UAL's MEC, and I feel IBT and SAPA's response is the only appropriate respond.

As tall Doug's favorite Captain said, "There's coffee in that nebula."

Er, wait... I meant "I don't respond well to threats." That's the one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top