|
Originally Posted by GhettoJet
(Post 4023552)
Indeed. Since we are APA and they are ALPA we only get Alleghany-Mohawk and are not protected by ALPA merger policy. The broader protections of McCaskill-Bond only apply if the same union represents both workgroups at the time of the merger.
”Internal Union Merger Policy. Where one union represented both employee groups affected by a transaction prior to a merger, the CAB held that a carrier's acceptance of an integrated seniority list produced pursuant to that union's internal merger policy satisfied the obligations under Section 3. The McCaskill-Bond statute explicitly provides that the union's internal policy applies in this circumstance. While several unions have internal merger policies, most of the litigation has involved ALPA Merger Policy. Under that policy, each Master Executive Council ("MEC") at its respective merging carriers typically chooses two or three merger representatives who are given total authority to negotiate seniority integration on behalf of their MEC, with the overall process subject to the supervision of ALPA's President and Executive Council. ALPA Administrative Manual § 45 (2009). Seniority integration agreements do not require ratification, but the integrated seniority list is generally part of a combined CBA, which does. To avoid having seniority list concerns artificially distort combined CBA negotiation and ratification, ALPA promotes in the application of its most recently revised Merger Policy the resolution of a combined CBA prior to the completion of the seniority list integration process (as was the case in the recent Delta-Northwest and Pinnacle-Mesaba and Colgan mergers and as ALPA is attempting to do with regard to the United-Continental merger). The MEC merger representatives must attempt to negotiate an agreement, but should they fail to do so, the ALPA merger provisions provide for mediation and for binding arbitration.The ALPA Merger Policy in particular differs from the Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs primarily in three ways. First, in an effort to more comprehensively protect pilot career interests…” Should have signed those ALPA cards when you had the chance. Now you are hoping a BOD that would sell your mother down the river for another month or two of fringe benefits will do the right thing. Also, you sound no different than the lunatics that told us we’d get screwed joining ALPA if AA merged their WO regionals into mainline. |
Ok who had trading cards on their bingo card as the big announcement
|
Originally Posted by Setspeed
(Post 4023607)
Ok who had trading cards on their bingo card as the big announcement
|
HAHAHAAAHAA! C'mon guys you have to have a sense of humor. It could be worse and pilots have been asking for trading cards for the last.... 20 years. At least it wasn't an announcement from the bonehead in charge of network for new service to Iran with a the new XXXLR. Only one lavatory, because they had to remove the pooper tanks to get more fuel :)
|
Originally Posted by RippinClapBombs
(Post 4023579)
Buddy settle down. I originally thought you were trolling, but apparently not. We’re not merging with United, it would never be allowed (thankfully), neither pilot group wants anything to do with such a proposal.
Also, you sound no different than the lunatics that told us we’d get screwed joining ALPA if AA merged their WO regionals into mainline. This was written into the 2007 FAA reauth by both MO senators (an R and D in those days) and in response to how (or at least the perception that) APA bent TWA ALPA over the barrel. |
United pilot. I know it’s not going to happen. Although I have no doubt that Kirby would sell out his own mother in a NY second, if it suited him. He’s a slimy- slippery character that’s only looking for personal attention. First he had his head so far up Biden’s rear end now it’s up Trumps’s. it’s totally disgusting!
if it did happen, I don’t care who the surviving carrier is, the ISL will be determined by arbitrators. The only thing I hope that survives from United side is the non-rev pass boarding priority via a date of hire, not who checks in first. Sorry, but that system sucks and totally violates the seniority system. Anyways, wishing the best for you guys and us too, and like most say it’s probably not gonna happen. |
Originally Posted by Boeing Aviator
(Post 4023707)
United pilot. I know it’s not going to happen. Although I have no doubt that Kirby would sell out his own mother in a NY second, if it suited him. He’s a slimy- slippery character that’s only looking for personal attention. First he had his head so far up Biden’s rear end now it’s up Trumps’s. it’s totally disgusting!
if it did happen, I don’t care who the surviving carrier is, the ISL will be determined by arbitrators. The only thing I hope that survives from United side is the non-rev pass boarding priority via a date of hire, not who checks in first. Sorry, but that system sucks and totally violates the seniority system. Anyways, wishing the best for you guys and us too, and like most say it’s probably not gonna happen. But I will trade that if you agree to keep our reservable jumpseat. In this 1% chance of this merger scenario..... |
Originally Posted by BrazilBusDriver
(Post 4023659)
He keeps conveniently leaving out the part where if it's not a same union merger, the CAB's Allegany-Mohawk merger provisions apply and there has to be an arbitrated seniority list that reflects the career expectations of both parties. Specifically to prevent TWA-AA from happening again, as CAB rules were no longer in effect after deregulation (as I understand the situation).
This was written into the 2007 FAA reauth by both MO senators (an R and D in those days) and in response to how (or at least the perception that) APA bent TWA ALPA over the barrel. Ironically, the big thing that did the TWA guys in was that it applied to the AA-US merger, and active US new hires were put ahead of furloughed AA-TWA. The 2012-2013 US hires were senior to about 1000-1200 TWA furloughees. They'll never regain that back, and retire a decade+ prior to them. That IMO was BS. Also the bulk of the Airways retirements were between the merger and 2022 IIRC. |
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4023719)
Now you won't get on because that gate agent who has been there for 50 years will beat you to that seat.....
But I will trade that if you agree to keep our reservable jumpseat. In this 1% chance of this merger scenario..... |
Originally Posted by Boeing Aviator
(Post 4023770)
Absolutely, wish we could reserve the jumpseat like you guys.
|
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4023949)
What is the JS policy at United? First come first serve? By DOH? I admittedly know very little about jumpseating…I drive to work. It’s a few hour drive, but I never get bumped and my ride never leaves without me. Thankful for that.
Personally, I prefer how Delta does it and it sounds like it’s the same way here. FCFS is fair and keeps some guys from bumping you off after you already put your bags up. |
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4023949)
What is the JS policy at United? First come first serve? By DOH? I admittedly know very little about jumpseating…I drive to work. It’s a few hour drive, but I never get bumped and my ride never leaves without me. Thankful for that.
Exclusive UAX carrier (GoJet, Commutair) is DOH Non-exclusive UAX (SkyWest, republic, etc) is time of check in |
So anyone know if this huge AAnouncement happened? I haven't seen anything...
|
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4023968)
It’s based on seniority until about 15 prior to departure. Some guys don’t list until they get to the airport which then bumps someone off. Generally speaking, the pilot group does a good job at listing ahead of time so everyone can plan accordingly.
Personally, I prefer how Delta does it and it sounds like it’s the same way here. FCFS is fair and keeps some guys from bumping you off after you already put your bags up. The JS is yours at that point only able to be bumped for fed, check pilot doing a line check, and weight restriction( needs to be in the BOW......). Though if only one JS listed, still have the 2nd JS in the bus and torture seat in the newer Max's. Though we have our own JS issues that need to be fixed outside of the JS being in the BOW. Which is mainly a PSA person able to bump us off an Envoy JS.
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 4024003)
So anyone know if this huge AAnouncement happened? I haven't seen anything...
|
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4024016)
Yep it's FCFS here with the JS being bookable starting 8 days out to that flight.
The JS is yours at that point only able to be bumped for fed, check pilot doing a line check, and weight restriction( needs to be in the BOW......). Though if only one JS listed, still have the 2nd JS in the bus and torture seat in the newer Max's. Though we have our own JS issues that need to be fixed outside of the JS being in the BOW. Which is mainly a PSA person able to bump us off an Envoy JS. Being 2-3 years late on a trend. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4024108)
Interesting. A jumpseater cannot be kicked off for weight restriction. At least not on mainline, UAX is different story
APA got burned by language again and another item that pits pilots and FA's against each other. Not sure how many CA's will utilize this mechanism if they realize the FA will get the FA JS and the Flight deck JS gets left behind...... It's nice that you guys got the JS's included into the BOW. We need to do the same. |
Originally Posted by Beech Dude
(Post 4024003)
So anyone know if this huge AAnouncement happened? I haven't seen anything...
|
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4024016)
Though we have our own JS issues that need to be fixed outside of the JS being in the BOW. Which is mainly a PSA person able to bump us off an Envoy JS.
|
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4024120)
We have a mechanism where we can use taxi fuel to account for a jumpseater to get them on, but if an FA checked in first, they get the cabin JS and flight deck JS gets left behind. APA grieved it, but arbitrator made a stupid ruling despite the fact the section of the contract was, " Fuel burn for flight deck jumpseat", but the language in the section itself didn't reference only the flight deck jumpseat.
APA got burned by language again and another item that pits pilots and FA's against each other. Not sure how many CA's will utilize this mechanism if they realize the FA will get the FA JS and the Flight deck JS gets left behind...... It's nice that you guys got the JS's included into the BOW. We need to do the same. Flight deck and cabin JS are included in the BOW which is a game changer for a ton of commuters. Can you guys occupy a cabin JS if no FAs list for it? |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4024256)
Man, that’s unfortunate. I hope you guys get language that favors including jumpseaters in the BOW.
Flight deck and cabin JS are included in the BOW which is a game changer for a ton of commuters. Can you guys occupy a cabin JS if no FAs list for it? |
Originally Posted by Lou Stool
(Post 4024255)
What's the problem with this? We get to reserve the jumpseat on mainline flights. The three WOs can't reserve the jumpseat, so this is their equivalent, if you want to call it that.
AA pilot gets dibs on mainline JS. Reservable JS or if it went by seniority, no matter how it is handled here at AA, AA pilot gets it. AA pilot could just be a normal D2 pass( not D1W/D2W) with an Envoy pilot listed as a D1 pass, if only the JS is left, AA pilot on D2 gets it. Envoy should get dibs on Envoy metal. PSA gets dibs on PSA flight. Piedmont gets dibs on Piedmont. But PSA having dibs on Envoy is not an equivalent to our bookable JS because we get our own JS no matter how the JS on mainline is handled.
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4024256)
Man, that’s unfortunate. I hope you guys get language that favors including jumpseaters in the BOW.
Flight deck and cabin JS are included in the BOW which is a game changer for a ton of commuters. Can you guys occupy a cabin JS if no FAs list for it? |
Originally Posted by RippinClapBombs
(Post 4024257)
What’s unfortunate is showing up to the airport not knowing if you’re getting the JS until 15 mins prior to departure. All the extra planning and stress and wasted time at the airport sucks. I hope we get language that favors BOW including jumpseaters but it is extremely rare to have a JS removed from the flight deck, especially with a large Airbus fleet, and it would not be a “game changer”. It should be a very low priority in the next contract negotiations.
|
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4024264)
Own metal rules is industry standard and more than fair.
AA pilot gets dibs on mainline JS. Reservable JS or if it went by seniority, no matter how it is handled here at AA, AA pilot gets it. AA pilot could just be a normal D2 pass( not D1W/D2W) with an Envoy pilot listed as a D1 pass, if only the JS is left, AA pilot on D2 gets it. Envoy should get dibs on Envoy metal. PSA gets dibs on PSA flight. Piedmont gets dibs on Piedmont. But PSA having dibs on Envoy is not an equivalent to our bookable JS because we get our own JS no matter how the JS on mainline is handled. No the FA's don't want to agree to allow us to occupy any empty cabin JS since they can't occupy the Flight Deck JS. |
Originally Posted by joepilot50
(Post 4024120)
We have a mechanism where we can use taxi fuel to account for a jumpseater to get them on, but if an FA checked in first, they get the cabin JS and flight deck JS gets left behind. APA grieved it, but arbitrator made a stupid ruling despite the fact the section of the contract was, " Fuel burn for flight deck jumpseat", but the language in the section itself didn't reference only the flight deck jumpseat.
APA got burned by language again and another item that pits pilots and FA's against each other. Not sure how many CA's will utilize this mechanism if they realize the FA will get the FA JS and the Flight deck JS gets left behind...... It's nice that you guys got the JS's included into the BOW. We need to do the same. |
Originally Posted by SoFloFlyer
(Post 4024318)
Ahh. Seems like JB is the only one that gives pilots the cabin JS (maybe DL too?).
They also tell the new hire FAs to refuse to allow any cockpit JSer if cabin JSers don’t get on as well. I’ve had a few of the brand, brand new FAs tell us that and push back when all JSers can’t be accommodated on weight restricted flights. It seems they’re being told that “if you don’t agree with it, it can’t happen”… Management loves the division. |
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4024377)
APFA(the AA FA union) actively tells new hire FAs that it’s us…the pilots…that are excluding them from the cockpit JS. It’s DEFINITELY not the FAA! They refuse to consider pilots using FA JS until they are allowed to use cockpit JS.
They also tell the new hire FAs to refuse to allow any cockpit JSer if cabin JSers don’t get on as well. I’ve had a few of the brand, brand new FAs tell us that and push back when all JSers can’t be accommodated on weight restricted flights. It seems they’re being told that “if you don’t agree with it, it can’t happen”… Management loves the division. |
I’m sure I’m misreading this, but are you saying that they are telling new hire FA’s that they determine if a pilot get in the cockpit JUMPSEAT or not?
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4024377)
APFA(the AA FA union) actively tells new hire FAs that it’s us…the pilots…that are excluding them from the cockpit JS. It’s DEFINITELY not the FAA! They refuse to consider pilots using FA JS until they are allowed to use cockpit JS.
They also tell the new hire FAs to refuse to allow any cockpit JSer if cabin JSers don’t get on as well. I’ve had a few of the brand, brand new FAs tell us that and push back when all JSers can’t be accommodated on weight restricted flights. It seems they’re being told that “if you don’t agree with it, it can’t happen”… Management loves the division. |
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4024377)
APFA(the AA FA union) actively tells new hire FAs that it’s us…the pilots…that are excluding them from the cockpit JS. It’s DEFINITELY not the FAA! They refuse to consider pilots using FA JS until they are allowed to use cockpit JS.
They also tell the new hire FAs to refuse to allow any cockpit JSer if cabin JSers don’t get on as well. I’ve had a few of the brand, brand new FAs tell us that and push back when all JSers can’t be accommodated on weight restricted flights. It seems they’re being told that “if you don’t agree with it, it can’t happen”… Management loves the division. |
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4024377)
APFA(the AA FA union) actively tells new hire FAs that it’s us…the pilots…that are excluding them from the cockpit JS. It’s DEFINITELY not the FAA! They refuse to consider pilots using FA JS until they are allowed to use cockpit JS.
They also tell the new hire FAs to refuse to allow any cockpit JSer if cabin JSers don’t get on as well. I’ve had a few of the brand, brand new FAs tell us that and push back when all JSers can’t be accommodated on weight restricted flights. It seems they’re being told that “if you don’t agree with it, it can’t happen”… Management loves the division. |
Originally Posted by FutureMajor8
(Post 4024819)
Some CAs need to grow some balls and make it known who is in charge.
Weak CA leadership seen by too many. FAs now think they decide when we have lav breaks and when we eat. The number of times I now see FAs call up with 45 minutes left in the flight with “you guys want to eat now?” Yeah no, and I’ll just claim meal reimbursement now. |
Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo
(Post 4024859)
That’s the main point; this isn’t the company allowing it, it’s CAs who allow the FAs to dictate the back of the plane. From the wheelchair closet, to seating. It’s not their plane, not their cabin.
Weak CA leadership seen by too many. FAs now think they decide when we have lav breaks and when we eat. The number of times I now see FAs call up with 45 minutes left in the flight with “you guys want to eat now?” Yeah no, and I’ll just claim meal reimbursement now. |
Originally Posted by FutureMajor8
(Post 4024819)
Some CAs need to grow some balls and make it known who is in charge.
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. |
Originally Posted by JulesWinfield
(Post 4024914)
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.
|
Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo
(Post 4024971)
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.
|
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!
|
Originally Posted by CincoDeMayo
(Post 4024971)
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.
|
Originally Posted by NERD
(Post 4024682)
I’m sure I’m misreading this, but are you saying that they are telling new hire FA’s that they determine if a pilot get in the cockpit JUMPSEAT or not?
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. |
Originally Posted by HPIC
(Post 4025166)
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. |
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.” |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:53 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands