Originally Posted by drinksonme (Post 4025384)

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.”

Originally Posted by Judge Smails (Post 4025433)

Our superior APA contract language strikes yet again.

Originally Posted by Judge Smails (Post 4025433)

Our superior APA contract language strikes yet again.

Originally Posted by JulesWinfield (Post 4025461)

In this case, it seemed like the language was fine, but the arbitrator was smoking crack.

Originally Posted by drinksonme (Post 4025384)

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.”

Originally Posted by JulesWinfield (Post 4025461)

In this case, it seemed like the language was fine, but the arbitrator was smoking crack.

Originally Posted by ACEssXfer (Post 4025509)

Agree. Absolutely outrageous decision. These dudes/dudettes have too much power.

The language itself only says "jumpseat" but the section the language is in is titled "flight deck jumpseat." I'll absolutely criticize APA, and have in the past, when it's warranted. This is not their fault.

Originally Posted by UnderCenter (Post 4025481)

Pretty easy to handle since using that section of the contract is strictly the Captain’s prerogative. I am not required to call dispatch to coordinate taxi burn to get a JS on. It is a contractual option for the Captain to utilize, not a requirement.

Originally Posted by CRJCapitan (Post 4025520)

The whole point is the union is incapable of negotiating contractual language that is legally unambiguous. Would it have been that hard to write "flight deck jumpseat" throughout the paragraph? Making assumptions doesn't cut it. Until we realize we're playing checkers while others are playing chess, we're going to keep losing.

Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo (Post 4025532)

I would be curious to see if there comes a time where we have a FD JS, a FA makes a stink that the cabin JS is listed ahead and will get the cabin JS if they coordinate fuel burn, AND the CA still agrees to coordinate fuel burn to get the cabin JS on, leaving the flight deck JS.