Benefits of JS reservations, a must read.
05-12-2015, 08:32 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,447
Originally Posted by Frisco727
Wrong
Maybe you need to educate yourself. The jumpseat is by seniority at LAA. The back of the aircraft is FCFS.
Maybe you need to educate yourself. The jumpseat is by seniority at LAA. The back of the aircraft is FCFS.
05-12-2015, 08:46 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Frisco727
Wrong
Maybe you need to educate yourself. The jumpseat is by seniority at LAA. The back of the aircraft is FCFS.
Maybe you need to educate yourself. The jumpseat is by seniority at LAA. The back of the aircraft is FCFS.
05-12-2015, 09:10 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
IT is backed up for another two decades programming much more important issues than jumpseat quibbling.
Whatever system is implemented by Kirby will be the system that will last until APA grows a pair and quits being a management sycophant.
Whatever system is implemented by Kirby will be the system that will last until APA grows a pair and quits being a management sycophant.
________________.
(Fill in the blank.)
05-12-2015, 10:28 PM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by Route66
....I kind of doubt the Company is going to REPROGRAM the IVR system after all the work gone into it and ALL the time it will take to satisfy the few "senior" guys libido's, all the while occupying valuable programmer time with something that already works.
05-13-2015, 01:41 AM
#25
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Snoopy 01
The reservation system at LUS was basically a positive space ticket. Why do you hate that?
Best system out there, hands down.
This stuff AA is doing is just freaking backwards.
05-13-2015, 02:09 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Posts: 403
Originally Posted by TonyC
Problems from who? Does not the PIC have the authority to deny flight deck access? Who will infringe on the PIC's authority?
The (company) policies to which you refer determine who The Company gives permission to, but there is nothing in 14 CFR §121.547 that allows The Company to infringe upon The Captain's authority to deny anyone he pleases. Just because The Company gives their permission doesn't mean the Captain has to give his permission also. Except for the few special cases (FAA air carrier inspector, etc.), the Captain's authority is unencumbered. If The Company tries to interfere with that authority, they'll have to answer to the FAA.
The Union is not in the hierarchy. The Union can attempt to negotiate with The Company to change their policies, but they obviously do not control the policies. The Union has a responsibility to educate Captains about their responsibilities and their authority, but they cannot interfere with Captains' decisions, or try to make decisions for The Captains. Only the Captains can be the Captains.
.
The (company) policies to which you refer determine who The Company gives permission to, but there is nothing in 14 CFR §121.547 that allows The Company to infringe upon The Captain's authority to deny anyone he pleases. Just because The Company gives their permission doesn't mean the Captain has to give his permission also. Except for the few special cases (FAA air carrier inspector, etc.), the Captain's authority is unencumbered. If The Company tries to interfere with that authority, they'll have to answer to the FAA.
The Union is not in the hierarchy. The Union can attempt to negotiate with The Company to change their policies, but they obviously do not control the policies. The Union has a responsibility to educate Captains about their responsibilities and their authority, but they cannot interfere with Captains' decisions, or try to make decisions for The Captains. Only the Captains can be the Captains.
.
05-13-2015, 03:18 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,238
Originally Posted by drinksonme
Your making points that I agree with. This is not a CA's Authority discussion. It's about the system by which pilots for this company, going forward, will "attempt" to utilize the Jumpseat, because yes a CA can deny it. That's not the issue here, it's about how a pilot will be able travel as a commuter or for personal reasons. The system to be used for that purpose is the topic, not the CA's decision on a specific flight.
Here is the point: if the Company says NO COCKPIT JUMPSEATERS OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED BY THE FAA (Inspector/SS/Ck Airman) then thats the end of it and the Captain HAS NO AUTHORITY TO GRANT JUMPSEAT ACCESS.
The PRIVILEGE of jumpseat policy belongs to the Company. PERIOD.
So again, watching the Crew news, the Company is going with the IVR system and, depending on how well LAA plays nice with the other kids, they MAY, sometime in the distant future, consider refining the IVR system. But that will be A WHILE.
Moving on.
05-13-2015, 03:29 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,262
Originally Posted by TonyC
14 CFR §121.547 is the controlling regulation. It says that in order for a person to gain access to the flight deck, that person must have the permission of:
If the Captain says, "No", the jumpseater don't go.
Period.
So, what were you saying about The Company dictating over the Captain?
.
1) The Admiistrator, and
2) The Certificate Holder, and
3) The Pilot in Command
Permission is required by all 3. Permission can be denied by any one. The Pilot in Command is one who can deny permission. 2) The Certificate Holder, and
3) The Pilot in Command
If the Captain says, "No", the jumpseater don't go.
Period.
So, what were you saying about The Company dictating over the Captain?
.
A Delta CA refused a FAA inspector on thr JS for not meeting company required appearance standards. It did not work out well for him.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
