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.

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.

Originally Posted by AAdvocate (Post 4025804)

Is this supposed to be some sort of silencing mechanism to stop people complaining? Do you work for the union?

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 than line pilots apparently. Volunteering is doing something for nothing in return.

Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4025987)

As someone who has never received any money from the union, I’m telling you I’m tired of hearing people like you complaining but showing zero willingness to help figure out a solution.

Originally Posted by APCbot (Post 4026080)

What was the big announcement?

Did they ever make it?

Originally Posted by DogPit (Post 4026032)

So we have to pay dues and volunteer before we are allowed to complain? Guess I should start working for my insurance company before I lob the next complaint.

Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4025987)

As someone who has never received any money from the union, I’m telling you I’m tired of hearing people like you complaining but showing zero willingness to help figure out a solution.

Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4026092)

You’re allowed to complain. But it’s unproductive and a waste of time if you never do anything about it. Why don’t you step up and try being a part of the solution? Instead of getting on a public forum and complaining.

So what do you suggest should be done to improve things?

Originally Posted by WiFly (Post 4026092)

You’re allowed to complain. But it’s unproductive and a waste of time if you never do anything about it. Why don’t you step up and try being a part of the solution? Instead of getting on a public forum and complaining.

So what do you suggest should be done to improve things?

Originally Posted by DogPit (Post 4026238)

APA has been a failure for decades, honestly I don’t think anything can be done.

Originally Posted by APCbot (Post 4026080)

What was the big announcement?

Did they ever make it?

Originally Posted by Tayo826 (Post 4026421)

How ugly will AA’s earnings call be tomorrow?

Originally Posted by Tayo826 (Post 4026421)

How ugly will AA’s earnings call be tomorrow?

Originally Posted by Name User (Post 4026435)

$1b loss but they'll tout "record revenue"

Originally Posted by CRJJ (Post 4026449)

You don’t understand!, Boeing/Airbus delays, terrible weather, ATC, wars, damn pilots are expensive too…..

Originally Posted by JulesWinfield (Post 4026429)

Very ugly. They estimated the winter storm cost 200 million. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s double that.

Originally Posted by nebke1 (Post 4026385)

I think that is a bit of an exaggeration. I think APA certainly has room for improvement but just saying 'they suck' is difficult to take seriously. I have used their resources/spoken with APA staff a few times and I have good experiences. I think the app is very good and the organization has gotten better at being proactive. They are much improved from where things were a few years ago and most importantly, they are for the most part all rowing in the same direction (except for the people actively trying to undermine APA because they think ALPA will fix all their problems).