Longhornmaniac8

That isn't what happened. United can unilaterally change the policies for their jumpseat, and they in fact did. This wasn't the issue. It's their prerogative to do so. We didn't make any fuss about being demoted to the non-exclusive UAX tier.

The issue was that they changed their software to put their pilots ahead of other UAX carriers on our jumpseat. They tried to sneak that through both without telling us and without our approval, approval they knew we wouldn't give.

If the two circumstances were equivalent, we would just tell you that you're going to give us priority now over OAL, which is exactly what UA tried to do to us. We both know that would go over like a lead balloon.



Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

sanicom3205

I am not comparing your jumpseat battle with United to what is happening now. I’m just saying that he said when you break the jumpseat agreement you no longer have an agreement and therefore can’t jumpseat. That’s what he said.

“United is knowingly breaking a reciprocal agreement (which is a regulatory document for the jumpseat). That right there leaves no argument... can’t occupy a jumpseat you’re disregarding the terms to”


814Pilot I have said in the past that it is the methods you guys use that set the stage for this battle. The nuances go out the door when you come in with an axe and start wrecking things. You and your fellow pilots have a history of weaponizing the jumpseat and getting what you want. I don’t want that precedent and you really don’t either.

814Pilot

Respectfully, I disagree. Our union consistently tried to sit down and talk with yours and they continuously ignored our attempts and it’s unfortunate that your union chose to spread misinformation in that letter about us to ignite your pilot group for something that ultimately has 0 effect on your or your WO’s priority. I don’t understand the argument that we’re looking for some sort of “super priority on all carriers” when all we’re asking for is to be 2nd from the bottom instead of tied for the bottom on your flights.

With that being said, I genuinely want to hear your opinion on how we should go about it differently when ALPA won’t even be bothered to sit down with our union?

dera

Trying to sit down does not mean anything, when you have nothing to offer.

814Pilot

We offer plenty by flying your routes for much less pay and being a reliable codeshare for your passengers, allowing you all to make the wages you do. We’re asking for the courtesy to be given priority over airlines who do not provide this service to you, I don’t see why we need to “offer” you something for that and
I don’t think it’s outrageous that you offer us the courtesy to be above OALs on AA flights

Longhornmaniac8

Fair enough. I think I've demonstrated now that we have not broken our agreement with AA because we are explicitly allowed to do this, in contrast to UA which was not allowed to do what they did based on our agreement.

As I've said before, our tactics may have been...overzealous, and I can accept the criticism for that. I don't believe we were outside our right to be upset about UA's tactics though, either. Both parties should have acted differently.

All that said, I sincerely ask you what we should have done differently in the current situation? We didn't start this endeavor to lower anyone's priority. We started it to gain a priority bump for our pilots in line with what the industry standard agreement is for other contract carriers at other majors. This was a situation where because the agreement was previously unequal, it's not like we have much to offer in return. Quid pro quo is not the law of the land, and not everything should require something in return. Especially when the two sides are presently not receiving equal treatment.

We approached AA, after years of failed attempts to open a dialogue with the APA, to work on getting a priority bump. Irrespective of anything else, we were acting to gain nothing more than what we currently have with other airlines. That is fundamentally reasonable, in my opinion, and there's no reason to think we might get resistance given the lack of issues with other pilot groups.

At this point our singular focus was on gaining that. There was no coercion, extortion, or whatever else you want to call it. We were negotiating in good faith with AA that this would get done and there wouldn't even need to be discussions of lowered priority.

Now, I'll grant that our pilot group has long been frustrated by the lack of equality between the two parties. We knew that achieving equal priority was also a primary goal, but the most logical way to do this was by elevating our priority to match what we give y'all. No one in the AA sphere loses, and everyone wins. The solution was so elegant and simple. Everyone was on board.

And then the APA came in like a freight train with all manner of (dubious, in my opinion) concerns/allegations. It was clear then, and still clear today, they never really fully grasped what the status quo was and why it was untenable.

It was really only then that we said, "wow, they really might not go for this." Mind you by this point we'd had meetings between our union, our management, and AA management (APA had, at this point, still not returned calls to be included).

As I said earlier, a primary goal was to restore parity/equality/reciprocity to an agreement that has long been...not that. So sure, at that point we said, "well, if you're not going to help us, then we're going to play the only card we have left to play."

This narrative about our methods completely ignores everything prior to this point.

When the APA said no and shut down negotiations, our two options were to either do nothing and continue with the status quo or fix it ourselves in the only way that did not require a third party (y'all) to sign off on it.

What would you have done differently? That's really not rhetorical. There's the whole narrative from our perspective; where did we go wrong? Where would we have had more success?

It's easy to sit there and say our methods were poor, but no one has actually offered any solutions. And the ones that have been offered we've systematically demonstrated we actually did do (remember 900 posts ago when the primary criticism was that we circumvented the APA).

So yeah. What do you do differently if you had been on the Republic Jumpseat Committee?

Also, the phrase "weaponizing the jumpseat" keeps getting bandied about, but I think it needs considerable more definition to have real meaning. It's being used as a catch-all term for any sort of change to a jumpseat agreement but that's not remotely what it means to me.

Going back, I can say we "weaponized" the jumpseat with the United situation. Speaking for myself, I regret that. I don't think it was a measured response to the situation.

I've yet to see how we're weaponizing it here. That term seems to have come into this discussion because it appeared to some of y'all (erroneously) that we were going to deny AAG people the jumpseat, which is simply false.

Equating changing an agreement (after sincere attempts to avoid the change) to weaponizing dilutes the meaning of the term to me.

"Jumpseat Wars" and "weaponizing the jumpseat" are (or should be) reserved only for circumstances where actual denials or threats of denials are taking place. No one at Republic has done any such thing. We've maintained a consistent message that all will be welcomed on our jumpseat. Even if there are some logistical issues, a Republic jumpseat will not go unfilled.

Somewhat ironically, the only instances I've seen of such things being insinuated/threatened were by people on the AAG side.




Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Longhornmaniac8

When we're asking for equal treatment, we don't need to offer anything. This idea of a quid pro quo being required is ludicrous.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

Cujo665

Priority on two carriers for one OAL being treated differently than other OAL’s is NOT an industry standard. It’s more an anomaly.

Cujo665

They aren’t American Eagle flights.... they are all American Airlines flights. AA is the only one selling tickets.

two carriers throwing RAH a bone is not an industry standard. In fact, it’s contrary to how OAL’s are supposed to be treated. Placing one OAL above another is certainly not treating the other OAL’s fairly.
We all agree to carry each others pilots. We all agree that own metal and own company come before other outside companies.
We do NOT all agree that a contractual business relationship should count for the Jumpseat. Business considerations do not belong on the Jumpseat, if we can make business related Jumpseat changes, then the company will want to also... which probably explains why you say AAG management was willing... of course they would be, it’s a foot in the door.
Keep business considerations off the Jumpseat.
the JS is a pilot benefit, not a company benefit.

Who has a contract today, or codeshare today is irrelevant when two OAL pilots show up at the gate.

vessbot

2 out of 3 ain't an "anomaly"

​​​​​​True, but you lost track of the question answered. It was, what is RAH offering? And priority on their jumpseats is what they're offering.

I thought this point got shut down for good when it undermined your demand that AA get priority on Republic based on their business relationship. Now that it's back, does it mean you agree that AA does not deserve this priority?