Originally Posted by
syd111
my point is sometimes you have to do something like that to get alpa'a attention. Funny with alpa you can call them and try to get a resonse about something and hardly a response, but deny the jumpseat and you get called the same day, then they listen.
Understand and agree with your point. But it's probably along the lines of Pro-stans. Like the jumpseat, pro-stans is something that a majority of the time stays at the pilot level. Combined with the fact that JS committee members commute themselves so they have a vested interest in getting matter resolved ASAP. As opposed to trying to deal with a rep on a contract issue or negotiating item, and other things come into play such as senior vs. junior, line holder vs. reserve, etc etc etc and the rep simply doesn't care about a specific concern.
Now, trying to get this thing back on track;
Originally Posted by
uaav8r
This thread is about the "SA0X" boarding priority being erroneously applied to UAX personnel on mainline UAL flights.
I'll ask the question again, since you overlooked/ignored it. Are you absolutely sure the SA0X UAX person is NOT on a deadhead? Because, again, not all UAX deadheads are positive space, you're simply at the top of the non-rev list. It's ONLY if it's getting into position that it becomes a positive space, OR the last flight back to domicile that's positive space. Otherwise, again, it's just top priority SA travel. Now, if UAL wants to treat the UAX carrier's crew members that way, that's cool. UAL buys the seats after all. Sucks for the guys that live in base, or you are supposed to DH back and catch a commute home, ect. But it gets better. If the DH involves getting back to domicile, and it's a reserve pilot and more flying was tacked on their schedule, well, that just means that pilot may miss they're flight. Which means a flight, or whole string of flights may cancel. Which means that UAL passengers that bought tickets from UAL to ride on airplanes that UAL management decided to outsource to for the lowest price just got seriously inconvenienced. Isn't that just awesome!!!!! I've witnessed it happen more times than I can count.
Originally Posted by
uaav8r
There's the temporary fix guys. Now just show some INTEGRITY!!!
You mean like the integrity that gets exercised when a pilot (regardless of carrier) gets denied a JS because a CA who's nothing more than an overgrown child suffering from small manhood syndrome thinks he's "really gonna show these guys and stick it to em by denying them a ride", all while trying to masquerade around as a "professional pilot". Seriously, have you ever seen the email comm that takes place between JS committee members? It can be pretty comical to hear the how and why a CA denied a pilot.
I guess we could also talk about the integrity (lack thereof) that a very small minority of mainline pilots exercised by taking full advantage of improper JS priority. BTW, that problem went on for well over a year. Let's hope this boarding issue thing (if it is a SA issue and NOT a deadhead issue) gets resolved to for UAL mainline employees in less time than the JS fiasco did.
Now just imagine, if scope wasn't given away on the ESOP midterm vote or on contract 2000, all these little boarding priority, jumpseat, and other silly peeing contests WOULDN'T be happening, would they?