Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4025557)

You say this as if you're not part of the union. Union isn't a third party, it's the membership. So go do something about it.

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 ps2sunvalley (Post 4025708)

Yeah because we know how that would go:

We want unambiguous contract language.

APA response: well you know that will have unintended consequences so you sure you want that?

Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4025801)

Again, you’re talking about the union as if you’re not part of it. Go run for rep or apply to a committee if you want to see change. Everyone here likes to blame others for all the problems. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

Originally Posted by drinksonme (Post 4025585)

Wrong target all.

Work groups fighting, workers blaming unions….company has everyone right where they want them….

Now both work groups and unions demand…ALL JUMPSEATS PART BOW…..then company does not have everyone where they want them…..

ALL JUMPSEATS ARE INCLUDED IN BOW, THE CREATED PROBLEM, IS GONE

just saying

Originally Posted by Duckdude (Post 4025851)

Why would you want to do that? Take a widebody with maybe 5 extra cockpit and flight attendant jump seats. You want to add roughly 1,000 pounds to the BOW every leg, possibly bumping 1,000 pounds of revenue unnecessarily? Or preventing you from carrying another 1,000 pounds of fuel.? Why not just say that weight restrictions won’t affect jumpseaters like United does? That way you only bump the revenue and/or fuel if there are actually jump seaters wanting to get on, not on every flight.

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 AAL24 (Post 4024215)

it was the trading cards.

Originally Posted by Duckdude (Post 4025851)

Why would you want to do that? Take a widebody with maybe 5 extra cockpit and flight attendant jump seats. You want to add roughly 1,000 pounds to the BOW every leg, possibly bumping 1,000 pounds of revenue unnecessarily? Or preventing you from carrying another 1,000 pounds of fuel.? Why not just say that weight restrictions won’t affect jumpseaters like United does? That way you only bump the revenue and/or fuel if there are actually jump seaters wanting to get on, not on every flight.