View Poll Results: What will be the announcement?
Voters: 120. You may not vote on this poll
Huge AAnnouncement.
#131
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 422
Likes: 14
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
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
#132
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2017
Posts: 216
Likes: 50
We want unambiguous contract language.
APA response: well you know that will have unintended consequences so you sure you want that?
#133
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 465
Likes: 56
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.”
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.”
#134
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 443
Likes: 143
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.
#135
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2026
Posts: 143
Likes: 154
Do you run for President when you disagree with what they are doing? And don't give me this "volunteer" bull-crap either, our representatives are compensated way more then line pilots apparently. Volunteering is doing something for nothing in return.
#136
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 671
Likes: 11
From: B767 Captain
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
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
#137
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.
#138
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 75
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.
#139
On Reserve
Joined: May 2023
Posts: 70
Likes: 16
From: Retired ATC
Since AA put the DC3 and 707 out there, too bad they did not continue the history part with others like the DC10, 747, 747SP, and so on. My mother worker for AA in the 60's and 70's - back then it was an amazing airline, even thou Continental had the "pub" on their DC-10's, AA was always the way to go. I miss the old days....
#140
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 422
Likes: 14
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.
Details…that is fine…let’s get to those on this issue instead of opining and infighting over the actual problem. Solution is there if we could focus as work groups and workers. Company thinks we won’t, so they just enjoy the show
Fine…narrowbody…1 flight deck jumpseat and one CJ will be included in the BOW. Should a situation where a CJ goes unused..then 2 FDJ will be considered as BOW or visa versa.
figure out the Widebody, and still have the taxi fuel option for other jumpseats.
or something along those lines. Again that is the details in the solution.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post


















