UAL and Jumpseats
#492
Yeah, I mean, how does a CA deny a non-rev for any reason other than 'the guy's intoxicated/ a safety hazard'?!? I hope this isn't true, but if it is, that CA needs some serious education.
#493
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 471
We also have multiple reports of Skywest captains instructing gate agents to not clear UAL and UAL ‘exclusive’ Jumpseaters at the gate. So basically you have captains unwilling to own their view point and thus dumping it on gate agents. Sorry not a good look at all SAPA. Not surprising at all btw...
#494
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 527
If that's what happened, sounds like the details got changed through a literal "game of telephone" and a nonrev became a jumpseater by the time the story reached the CA
#495
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: 737 Cap
Posts: 451
On the jumpseat issue at hand, I believe a more reasoned response would have been to lump UAL pilots into the OAL bucket wrt jumpseat priority until a mutually agreed upon solution could be completed. I understand both arguments thoroughly so there is no need to rehash them here.
I also believe that weaponizing a safety document like an FOM sets an incredibly bad precedent. I can’t imagine that any POI is going to look positively on a flight ops team and leadership team that is willing to do so.
#497
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 65
Again, we aren’t talking the same language. Departures are only part of the equation. ASM is the industry accepted metric. The current ratio of mainline domestic to express domestic ASM is roughly 4 to 1. Meaning if Skywest and Republic are doing 65% of the express flying (no idea if correct but seems reasonable?), then they’re providing approx 16% of the domestic ASM. Not insignificant by any means and definitely a critical part of the United business model.
On the jumpseat issue at hand, I believe a more reasoned response would have been to lump UAL pilots into the OAL bucket wrt jumpseat priority until a mutually agreed upon solution could be completed. I understand both arguments thoroughly so there is no need to rehash them here.
I also believe that weaponizing a safety document like an FOM sets an incredibly bad precedent. I can’t imagine that any POI is going to look positively on a flight ops team and leadership team that is willing to do so.
On the jumpseat issue at hand, I believe a more reasoned response would have been to lump UAL pilots into the OAL bucket wrt jumpseat priority until a mutually agreed upon solution could be completed. I understand both arguments thoroughly so there is no need to rehash them here.
I also believe that weaponizing a safety document like an FOM sets an incredibly bad precedent. I can’t imagine that any POI is going to look positively on a flight ops team and leadership team that is willing to do so.
#498
That sounds extremely unusual. I’ve had them do that numerous times only when a JS wants on. Never once heard of an agent calling down for a non rev wanting a seat, not saying it didn’t happen but I find it hard to believe...I’d take a wager that the words were more along the lines of if they could take the jump seater up front. Which for the record, I still believe they should have taken him of course.
#499
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 524
The ZW guy in question wasn’t able to see his kids thanks to the petty crap this OO CA pulled. He was in fact listed as a non-rev, because he had gotten denied for the j/s. Real classy.
#500
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 344
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post