Originally Posted by
Flyer2000
The DAL computer system will not allow more than one (or two depending on the number of jumpseats in the cockpit) jumpseat card to be printed.
Sadly, I understand perfectly (I know you're doing your best). If you fly Delta Connection, you will pay a non-rev fee to jumpseat - unlimited jumpseat agreement (an agreement signed by management of both Delta and the applicable Delta Connection carrier) be d@med. Though the agreement is
unlimited, the way it will be treated for Delta Connection pilots is 'as many jumpseats as there are flightdeck jumpseats on the aircraft', ie, limited, partially reversing one of the few gains the Delta MEC secured in the midst of watching their contract get worked over in bankruptcy.
Originally Posted by
Airhoss
Here is the reply from the United MEC,,
United Airlines and all UAX managements have signed an agreement whereby all UAX employees that occupy a cabin seat on any UAX flight will be charged an associated fee. It is also expected, but not written in this agreement, that UAX pilots would also be charged for a seat while traveling under the provisions of unlimited jumpseat travel on their own carrier, as well as other UAX flights.
Needless to say, the UAX pilots are outraged with this agreement. The UAL-MEC Jumpseat Committee is also in agreement that there be no charges levied for a jumpseat, flight deck or cabin. UAX pilots jumpseat agreements allow for unlimited jumpseats to all offline carriers as well as their own pilots. We fully support these UAX carriers in their efforts to exercise their agreements to their fullest .However, we cannot negotiate on their behalf, nor can we represent them in discussions with their respective managements. We will do everything we can to support these UAX pilots with their endeavors. . . .
My bolding and underlining in the quote.
Same thing. On-line pilots jumpseating = paying a fee to jumpseat. The
unlimited jumpseat agreement UAL management signed with each UAX carrier's management? That is now superseded by a new
non-rev agreement, one that doesn't even mention jumpseating, but will impose non-rev rules on jumpseaters anyway.
Did I miss the part in the UAL memo that says:
"You, as the PIC, will be the final authority as to the jumpseat. We worked hard to secure unlimited jumpseats for our fellow pilots, and we will not allow UAL management to re-write our jumpseat agreements" - the UAL MEC was a party to the unlimited UAX jumpseat agreements, after all. No, instead, we get . . .
"we will do everything we can to support"; words are great, but there is no actual written guidance to UAL pilots on how a UAL PIC can support the UAX pilots. Thus, UAL PIC's can be reading this memo as the gate agent and the UAL computer system charge UAX pilots for jumpseats.
Originally Posted by UAL MEC
Should you encounter a denial as a result of this policy change, we ask that you contact the Jumpseat Committee as soon as possible. We will not tolerate this conduct and will make the UAX Jumpseat Committee chairs aware of this immediately.
No guidance to help a UAX pilot or to administer a UA jumpseat on your own aircraft as a UA pilot, but UA's Jumpseat Committee will "not tolerate" any UAX CA exercising his/her PIC authority and denying a UAL pilot a jumpseat? At the very least, not a good choice of words.
---
There was a time when a jumpseat was a request made from a pilot to the PIC of the aircraft. The gate agent merely assisted the PIC in this process. Now we have MEC's allowing the authority to control the jumpseat to transfer to the gate agent and a computer under the auspice of 'security'. There is NO security risk allowing a pilot in a secure area access to speak with the PIC in the same manner any passenger would have access, nor is there any reason to treat jumpseat applicants as non-revs.
I highly encourage all Delta Connection and United Express pilots impacted by this to contact your jumpseat committees, and, for those of you that are ALPA, contact the ALPA National Jumpseat Chairman. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
MM, this is typical BS. GK would have never stood for this.