A lot of the DFW captains seem to have symptoms of Asperger syndrome. 0 people skills. This stuff should be handled in the FA briefing. I would caution you against submitting the meal reimbursement if your meal wasn't missing or materially incomplete. It is an automated process and you will get reimbursed, but they can and will use it to hang you down the road if they want to get rid of you. If you're hungry or need to use the lav, have the captain call back. You don't have to sit there and pout. Use your words.

I’ve seen this too often at the AA regional I work for. Saw it too much when I was an FO and still see it as a commuter, and hear about it from FO’s. Afraid to assert themselves and don’t seem to understand that they are the CAPTAIN. Captain calls the shots. Too many captains are weak and give in to the FA’s for various things and it drives me insane.

I get that we are trying to get away from the days of ‘captain is God,’ but Jeeze some of them absolutely need to grow a pair. Be the boss, without being bossy.

If im hungry, I’ll call. Don’t assume it’s about pouting. It’s about FAs running the show because we have CAs allowing it to happen.

Well said. It all stems from timid captains, not necessarily bad FAs (the issue of not getting meals on time, etc.). It's simple to brief them and say "it's a 1 hour flight, we will take the meals on the ground before we close the flightdeck door, so please heat them up now, thank you." They actually appreciate the pre-planning and solid instruction.

This sounds like another item we need to add to the manuals to blatantly spell out how to be a pilot and do pilot 5h!t!

but if you’re not hungry, you’ll wait to see if they call you, and if it’s past your arbitrary point in time you’ll then stick the company with a fraudulent reimbursement? Geez dude. Not only is that a ridiculous approach, but it doesn’t do a single thing to solve the problem you’re identifying.

I’ve encountered this twice with new hire FA’s. Weight restricted flight. With our taxi burn agreement with the dispatcher we could get the cockpit JS on but not a cabin JS. New hire FA says “if the cabin JS doesn’t go, the cockpit JS doesn’t go”. When pressed they both said they were told that during training and to refuse to allow any JS if the cabin JS doesn’t get on.

I’m sure that gives them the impression that it must be agreed upon by all to put any JS on. We all know that’s not how it works…but the young, inexperienced, impressionable FA’s don’t necessarily.

Both times it was shut down immediately and the FA in question educated. Whether that education takes or not is anybody’s guess.

Thats crazy to hear but completely believable. The fact they they are leaving training thinking they have input on jumpseaters is crazy. I can only imagine what they are told about the wheelchair storage compartment when it comes to their bags vs pilot bags.

The people who foster conflict between employee groups are the biggest asset to the company. Divide and conquer, not sure why so many people fail to understand that.

I don’t know the circumstances you all referencing, BUT, the NEW FA might not have been wrong…if priority on the non rev list comes into play. Be careful and mindful how you handle this. We lost a grievance….its BS


Sicher Presidential P-21-24 (24-077) (Flight Deck Jumpseat): The grievance was filed on May 22, 2024, protesting the violation of Section 19.C.1. and past practice. APA asserted that Section 19.C.1. was intended to apply exclusively to the flight deck jumpseat and the Company inappropriately expanded its application to include the cabin jumpseat. The System Board denied the grievance based upon the contractual language: “A majority of the Board finds that Section 19(C)(1) is clear and unambiguous, and there is no language in the Agreement that guarantees a pilot the ability to occupy a flight deck jumpseat after considering the taxi fuel burn on a weight restricted flight ahead of a flight attendant who wishes to occupy a cabin jumpseat. … If the Association wanted to ensure that it had priority over any other work group with respect to occupying a jumpseat on the aircraft, then it must negotiate contract language and/or a procedure to guarantee that result. Here, the parties agreed upon contract language that made no change in the boarding priorities or any these affecting the implementation of the benefit obtained in Section 19.C.1. … However, no changes were negotiated to the non-rev boarding procedure which applied to all work groups. … Section 19.C.1. does not alter the boarding priority in the Company’s non-rev policy, and the Board is without authority to rewrite the parties’ Agreement or Company policy to guarantee pilots a priority they did not achieve in bargaining.”