sanicom3205

Okay, you would get priority on about 90% of our flights and we get it on 50%. You’re not making yourselves seem like less of children with that kind of argument.

Many of your embraers have two jumpseats up front? That’s news to me. Not really sure what you’re trying to say here....

Tring

AA only has 10% international flying?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

greatmovieistar

everything seems to be news to you as you obviously don't know that much. I'm not going to explain it to you as you have difficulty retaining information so not worth wasting time. But there are instances on a full flight that if it was you and a Republic pilot for the jumpseat, you would get it and the rpa guy would sit with the fa in the back.

SilverandSore

Asking and denied. There is precedence in this agreement, one party chooses not to change the agreement, case closed. You can't win this one, you simply don't have enough carrot to dangle.

vessbot

Here's the truly pathetic aspect of all this. You're not being asked to give anything up to be enticed by a carrot!

AV8R72

We are being asked to jeopardize our agreements with other carriers.

it’s over. APA said no. Get ready to see how AA reacts when they have to lose revenue by giving an A1D to a pilot wrongly denied the jump

SilverandSore

Nothing pathetic about it. We’ve been operating under this agreement for years. A change in the agreement where Republic goes higher on a list certainly forces someone (who ends up not being in the jumpseat) to give something up. Sorry you guys feel this way but outside of a new agreement there is nothing you can do except harm yourselves and other commuting pilots. Per my union, I will continue to welcome you guys on my jump seat in the order we have, currently, established.

BattMartle

No, we are being asked to change a long-standing agreement and threatened with retaliation if we don’t. That’s not how you bargain. Trying to bully us into accepting your terms is just a bad tactic.

vessbot

It's hard to put any credence on this, considering the current status of the UA and DAL systems, and other airlines' long standing operation within those.

​​​​​​​That someone is not you, it's other airlines that can (and should) put you (and me) behind their own regionals.

First, ​​​​​​in the proposed change, you wouldn't be giving anything up. So why the resistance?

Second, the "long-standing" arrangement does not seem to be enshrined in any agreed-to terms (priority levels). I keep asking about any such provisions, and from the lack of response (which one would think the APA supporters here would want to quickly whip out in defense of their position) I can only conclude they don't exist.

Third: Then how do you bargain? It seems Republic has tried to engage APA on this for years, and consistently given the cold shoulder. Then what can they do (other than just F off, which I won't entertain as reasonable)? I think they put forth a very reasonable set of options for APA to choose from (mutual priority and mutual OAL.) Do you find anything unreasonable about them? If so, what is it?

​​​​​​​It's interesting that you consider the default option 2 (mutual OAL) as "bullying," yet at the same time are not just OK with, but demand that they continue accepting, their one-way status of the same. Why do you think they owe you the continuation of this?

BattMartle

It’s not the terms of what you want I consider bullying... it’s your methods. Also, here’s a question, what did you offer APA in exchange for a change in our agreement? Aside from you not throwing a hissy fit and changing the terms on your own.