greatmovieistar

How come it seems like mostly current and ex Envoy guys screaming the loudest against this in this thread. AA guys who came in outside of that cult seem to agree or at the least indifferent to the proposed changes. Don't you Envoy guys have more important things to worry about right now then a priority change that doesn't impact you at all? Wow, are you guys bitter.

BurnerAccount69

I think he means AAG.

watch

I came from outside the wholly-owneds. I think wholly-owned pilots should have priority over OAL, regardless of time of check-in. American, then wholly-owned (by seniority), then OAL by time of check-in. Wholly-owned pilots work hard to feed mainline's network, and giving them priority helps them to their assignment faster, or get home sooner (happier pilots = better ops). I also don't think wholly-owned airline pilots should have a flow anymore. They need to shut that program down.

buddies8

Who really cares. They want to restrict on there flights so be it. Revenge is sweet in the cold

vessbot

Republic thinks so too, and this would have been the case under their rejected proposal.

Cujo665

what is it about non owned is confusing you? You’re essentially a big charter company with three customers.
Thats OAL all day, everyday.

and you’re misrepresenting the order.
currently a United, Delta, Jetblue, Alaska guy all have the same opportunity you do for the jumpseat. You want to go ahead of other OAL’s. How is that fair to the other OAL’s?

I understand two others are currently doing exactly that, I’d posit that they are in violation of their JS agreement by treating one OAL (RAH) differently than other OAL.

If an AA guy shows up well before a
RAH guy for a Delta or United flight, who gets the JS....
The RAH guy gets the JS even though both are OAL. That is not treating OAL faiurly.

the only way that’s fair to all is
own metal
own company (parent, siblings, subsidiaries)
OAL’s

Keep business interests out of the JS. It’s a pilot benefit, not the company over who flys who’s passengers.

Now, APA rejected this already. So, just let the thread die or one of the mods close it. It’s just fighting now.

captive apple

I think i would support getting rid of regional partner priority status and moving all OAL to OAL TOC. TOC is clean and easy. I’m not surprised this thread has gone on as long as it has. If RPA does do that then it will be up to AA to accept or end their js agreement with RPA. If they both decide to open their jumpseats to each other again they can meet on a new agreement.

greatmovieistar

That's your religious belief and that's fine. You don't work for American or AAG so not sure what you are doing in this argument. Heard you got kicked out or something and had to go work for an ACMI. Any way, if AAG firmly believes that then it is fine. We are OAL to you then you are OAL to us. OAL isn't a one way street pal. lol, one airline can't be OAL to the other while the other is not to them.

Longhornmaniac8

So to summarize, "keep business interests out of the jumpseat."

Proceeds to put business interests in your jumpseat priority.

The only way to get what you're saying you're advocating for is:

-Own Metal;
-OAL.

For the record I'd be perfectly fine with this.

The minute you start putting parents/sisters/yada yada yada you're inserting a business interest. You're either own metal or you're not.

It is once again awfully brazen for you to just out and out accuse two other major airlines of violating jumpseat agreements, especially when you *continue* to beg the question. Repeating a logical fallacy over and over again doesn't suddenly make it the truth.

So let's play Occam's Razor here. Which is more likely: That two major airlines have this wrong and are threatening disruption of the entire jumpseat process or that your sanctified jumpseat priority you keep posting and your definition of OAL in this context are both wrong?

I know where I'm placing my bets.

And the APA said no, and are cutting off their nose to spite their face in the process, but considering the situation is still evolving I don't see why you're trying to stifle discussion.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Cujo665

well, if we’re going to put contract business interests into the Jumpseat, both Alaska and Jetblue now carry AA passengers on codeshares, and AA doesn’t even have to have a FFD/CPA with them.

you offer 60 jets doing about 300 flights a day to under 100 AA destinations, many on routes shared with other contract, WO and mainline flights at other times of the day. You’re importance isn’t as big a deal since Parker started overlapping carriers in bases and routes.
AAG has over 960 hulls doing over 5,000 flights a day easy, on a global scale. You have a Jumpseat agreement because the APA sees some value in it. Reciprocal agreement simply means you agree to carry each others pilots... it has ZERO to do with the conditions, limitation, restrictions or any other contractual provision. Plenty have reciprocal agreements but are limited as D6L on the AAG side.