Disappointed on the new changes on offline jumpseats. I knew they were coming from reading the TA, but unhappy that they are already implemented.

I always thought it was a great selling point to our offline brethren that they could reserve the jumpseat 24 hours prior and couldn't be bumped.

Oh well...

meanwhile you can get bumped by an online jumpseater on their carrier. Seems fair.

This. Have not offlined in years since this seemed to happen often, especially when MEM was a domicile. Always wondered why our arrangement was not truly reciprocal.

Our folks before their folks, all the time. Seems simple (and fair).

I think most of us book a jumpseat pretty far in advance...I wouldn't think there are too many last minute jumpseaters, so offline guys should still feel pretty safe

Usually there are many more options at a passenger terminal than at a cargo ramp.

Offline guy gets bumped 2 hours prior and he's basically screwed.

I am not if favor of this change. Maybe 4 or 6 hours. I agree, offline is screwed at 2 hours.
The reciprocal to me is numbers vs quality. We jumpseat 10 to 1 on passenger guys. Giving a little more quality to them seemed like quid pro quo to me.

Simple, if you call to book and it's full, ask if anyone is offline. If they are, don't book it and find another way.

Of course the MX guys now booking Personal and bumping offlines may not consider this.

In our effort to be like everyone else (never mind the fact that in some aspects we were better to begin with) we take this opportunity to try to make apples look and taste the same as orangutans.

When you're at the passenger terminal and you get bumped, you're at the passenger terminal. Maybe that was the last flight out that you got bumped from, but more often than not there are other options ... later, true, less convenient, yes, but still in the passenger terminal. On the other hand, when you show up on the other side of the airport an hour early for a FedEx jumpseat only to discover that you were bumped a few minutes ago, you have no other options, and getting back to the passenger terminal or a hotel is a major pain.

For those who ascribe to the "screw your buddy" philosophy, I'm sure this is a win. For those of us who could brag to our Pax brethren about what a great deal we could offer them in the form of an almost-guaranteed jumpseat reservation, it's egg on our face. Sadly, it's "ALPA-requested" egg at that.

I would have preferred real-time trip trading.






.

What does 14 CFR Part 121.547 say about mechanics, personal travel, and flight deck access?



The Company claims the FAA has approved, but I have yet to see a change to the regulation, and even the ALPA FDX MEC Chairman can't seem to find the letter from the FAA saying it's OK.

As written, any person admitted to the flight deck must have the "permission of the pilot in command, an appropriate management official of the part 119 certificate holder, and the Administrator; and ..." I'll get to the "and" part in a second, but first note how this is worded. The person requires the permission of all three entities. No single entity may permit entry, but any single entity may DENY entry. If a single entity, like The Company, could permit entity, then I, as the PIC, could permit my wife to ride in the cockpit. It doesn't work that way.

Now for the "and" ... the pertinent part that follows is subparagraph (A)(3)(ii)(b):

(ii) Is an employee of—

(B) A part 119 certificate holder and whose duties are such that admission to the flightdeck is necessary or advantageous for safe operation


'Splain to me how a mechanic traveling on personal status is "necessary or advantageous for safe operation."


If the FAA approved this, I'd like to see the revised regulation. I recall a rogue POI who told JetBlue it was OK to violate 8-in-24 just to see what it would be like to fly east coast to west coast and back, too. Sometimes the Administrator means what the Administrator (the CFR) says.






.