Depends on which side you work for as to whether it’s getting fixed or not. YX has a contract to honor AA’s policies while operating AA flights. That includes our boarding priority and the way the list is cleared for cabin seats and the jump seat. An FOM change doesn’t negate the fact that YX signed a contract. This came out yesterday from APA.

“We would like to thank everyone for their patience and professionalism with the threat of contract abrogation by Republic and the Teamsters. The two airlines’ executives have taken over the issue, hence the “pause.”

Our jumpseat priority on the non-wholly owned regionals remains unchanged. If you encounter any deviation from this, please immediately call the Duty Chief and then submit a Jumpseat Debrief. We need as much information as possible in these debriefs, with a minimum of the flight number, the date, the station, and a brief description.”

If they are talking about contract abrogation, then AA most likely has gotten their legal team involved to go after YX for a breach of contract. It’s just the way Parker generally operates. He has been known to sue in the past for contract violations including unions at his own company. He likely won’t hesitate to sue YX or the teamsters for violating a contract and disruption of the status quo.

 

That’s all dera is known for, people like that just can’t help but make everything worse.. adding nothing of substance.

 

Lighten up Francis

 

The FAR’s could care less about “contract abrogation.” This includes the JS is at the CA’s discretion PLUS if it’s an FOM change it is approved by the FAA and must be followed via the FAR’s. So essentially you would be suing the FAA, good luck with that.

 

Ohh, I am well aware of dera and the fact that the Envoy First Officer is an unapologetic shill for Envoy management.

 

I am on your side but your interpretation of his post/ your understanding of the law is flawed. Breach of contract has nothing to do with the FARs, the FAA could not care less one way or another in this matter, as long as your jumpseat policy is in compliance with the regulations. I wouldn't ecpect the FAA to go to bat for you, nor would lawyers for RAH be able to use that as a defense in front of a judge in a civil suit.


It would be akin to rewrite your FOM to limit the amount of passengers to 20 instead of 76 and then having the FAA approve it, there are still grounds for AAG to sue for breach of contract.

Again, I am on your side but thinking the FOM being approved by the FAA is a bulletproof defense is incorrect.

 

A YX CA making the walk to exercise 121.547 would not be breaching any contract. So even if company manuals were not officially changed because of “legal action,” this would most likely be the result, especially with crews that commute via AA and get screwed consistently.

 

Not even one shoe has dropped yet from aag, I'm waiting to see aag next move. That will be telling.
I believe I read that ual updated its priority recently, rah falls in with oal, the other ual feeders have a higher priority (than rah) right behind ual pilots above rah and oal.

 

You missed the point entirely, a change to an FOM approved by the FAA will have little or no bearing in a civil case as it is not considered legislature. An FOM change is not rules upon by a judge and is not legal precedent.

A judge doesnt care about any pilot "making the walk" per 121.547. The entire basis of this disagreement will be on the intent and letter of the contract, what parts were amenable and when, and the current interpretation and impact.

If AAG sues over this, which is laughably unlikely, it will not be debated over the control limits of FOM revisions. It will more likely fall under the agreements that AAG had with RAH regarding jumpseat listing and priority. FAR 121, or any FARs for that matter, will not be a basis or brought up at all.

If the contract stated jumpseat priority was to be dealt with in a certain way, and it is not being dealt with in the way outlined in the contract between AAG, and RAH, that is what the basis of a breach of contract lawsuit will be based upon. The contract between AAG and RAH is not by any means a FAR, it wont be judged as an FAR, it wont be ruled upon by the same manner FARs are ruled upon (NPRM, waiting periods, etc). The FAA and RAHs FOM are not a legal defense.

This is all a moot point, AAGs legal team is more likely being paid for defense against claims from passengers, carbon taxes, etc. Anybody within AAG knows that the CEO doesnt give 2 ****s about how easy their pilots lives are, let alone something as insignificant as JS priority. No lawsuit will be filed and it will probably be hashed out by the unions or management.

Once again, i side with the RAH pilots on this, but thinking that the FOM revision is a golden bullet is foolish.

 

No one is arguing 121.547. What is being argued is the way the list is cleared at the gate. Without the gate agent clearing a jump seater and issuing a boarding pass, a captain has absolutely no authority to escort someone down the jetbridge because he thinks someone else should be on the jumpseat. Still takes a gate agent following aa policy to get past the gate.

As for a law suit, a civil judge will absolutely care that a company tried to achieve something by a policy change that was not achieved when the agreement was signed. That’s a breach of contract.

Finally, since Republic pilots are so stuck on fair reciprocal agreements, it would only be be fair that if we extend you priority boarding on our 1230+ Mainline and wholly owned airplanes and 180+ destinations, that we should be extended the same on all of republic’s 190 planes and 50+ destinations ahead of all other jumps eaters including priority over delta and United pilots on flights operated for United and Delta. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is fair reciprocity, although you are clearly the better deal when comparing fleet size and destinations. After that is implemented, try putting an AA guy on a Delta Connection flight in front of a Delta pilot and see how that works out just because your FOM says so.