Search
Notices

Boarding Priority

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 04-11-2012, 12:21 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
Default

Originally Posted by Crism View Post
Aww this thread is cute. The old pilots are arguing about young pilots TUUUKIINN YERRRRRRR PRAAOORRRIIITTTTEEERRRRRSSSS.
Have no idea what you are talking about.
syd111 is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 12:29 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
uaav8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Default

This thread is about the "SA0X" boarding priority being erroneously applied to UAX personnel on mainline UAL flights. It has nothing to do with anyone's jumpseat. It has everything to do with United Airlines employees and their families being left behind at the gate. There is no "jumpseat war" going on here. Until this gets fixed, IF YOU ARE A UAX EMPLOYEE TRAVELING ON YOUR OWN METAL AND SUBSEQUENTIALLY RETURNING ON A UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT, YOU SHOULD LIST ONE WAY, EACH WAY! Otherwise you will likely be boarding the United Airlines flight on a bogus priority. There's the temporary fix guys. Now just show some INTEGRITY!!!
uaav8r is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:09 PM
  #23  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Default

Originally Posted by syd111 View Post
my point is sometimes you have to do something like that to get alpa'a attention. Funny with alpa you can call them and try to get a resonse about something and hardly a response, but deny the jumpseat and you get called the same day, then they listen.
Understand and agree with your point. But it's probably along the lines of Pro-stans. Like the jumpseat, pro-stans is something that a majority of the time stays at the pilot level. Combined with the fact that JS committee members commute themselves so they have a vested interest in getting matter resolved ASAP. As opposed to trying to deal with a rep on a contract issue or negotiating item, and other things come into play such as senior vs. junior, line holder vs. reserve, etc etc etc and the rep simply doesn't care about a specific concern.

Now, trying to get this thing back on track;

Originally Posted by uaav8r View Post
This thread is about the "SA0X" boarding priority being erroneously applied to UAX personnel on mainline UAL flights.
I'll ask the question again, since you overlooked/ignored it. Are you absolutely sure the SA0X UAX person is NOT on a deadhead? Because, again, not all UAX deadheads are positive space, you're simply at the top of the non-rev list. It's ONLY if it's getting into position that it becomes a positive space, OR the last flight back to domicile that's positive space. Otherwise, again, it's just top priority SA travel. Now, if UAL wants to treat the UAX carrier's crew members that way, that's cool. UAL buys the seats after all. Sucks for the guys that live in base, or you are supposed to DH back and catch a commute home, ect. But it gets better. If the DH involves getting back to domicile, and it's a reserve pilot and more flying was tacked on their schedule, well, that just means that pilot may miss they're flight. Which means a flight, or whole string of flights may cancel. Which means that UAL passengers that bought tickets from UAL to ride on airplanes that UAL management decided to outsource to for the lowest price just got seriously inconvenienced. Isn't that just awesome!!!!! I've witnessed it happen more times than I can count.

Originally Posted by uaav8r View Post
There's the temporary fix guys. Now just show some INTEGRITY!!!
You mean like the integrity that gets exercised when a pilot (regardless of carrier) gets denied a JS because a CA who's nothing more than an overgrown child suffering from small manhood syndrome thinks he's "really gonna show these guys and stick it to em by denying them a ride", all while trying to masquerade around as a "professional pilot". Seriously, have you ever seen the email comm that takes place between JS committee members? It can be pretty comical to hear the how and why a CA denied a pilot.

I guess we could also talk about the integrity (lack thereof) that a very small minority of mainline pilots exercised by taking full advantage of improper JS priority. BTW, that problem went on for well over a year. Let's hope this boarding issue thing (if it is a SA issue and NOT a deadhead issue) gets resolved to for UAL mainline employees in less time than the JS fiasco did.

Now just imagine, if scope wasn't given away on the ESOP midterm vote or on contract 2000, all these little boarding priority, jumpseat, and other silly peeing contests WOULDN'T be happening, would they?
xjtguy is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:50 PM
  #24  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by xjtguy View Post
No offense gettinbumped, but there's a few more things you should remember about that as well. There was A LOT more to that whole thing. It went on for quite some time that UAL pilots were processed ahead of UAX pilots on their own metal, with a fair share of UAL pilots taking full advantage of it. And it was happening on ALL UAX carriers, not jut OO. It was the worst where it's UAL gate agents, the UAX plane is out at the hardstand on a quick turn, the CA may not have time to walk to the gate, and the agent is processing the UAL pilot and not even letting the UAX pilot down to talk to the CA. YES, it happened, repeatedly, hence all the reports to the JS chairs.

For months, the respective UAX JS chairs would inform the UAL JS committee, and NOTHING was being done. The usual response was "it's a glitch in the system, the company says it's too expensive to fix, so we can't do anything about it". In other words, pi$$ off.

AGAIN, this went of for months and months. Then all but one of UAX carriers (at the time) decided to draft the letter you have been shown. Well, wasn't it a freaking coincidence that when that happened, the UAL JS committee actually put pressure on the company to fix the issue? It wasn't about starting a "jumpseat war". It was about going through proper channels and procedures for an extended period of time and constantly banging your head on an wall because the system wasn't being fixed.

There were PLENTY of threads on here about it back then, and PLENTY of UAL pilots that thought it was their god given right to have JS priority on UAX airplanes. These guys also thought that the "tail shouldn't try to wag the dog". It wasn't about that, it was about getting YOUR JS committee to get something fixed that they didn't see as a priority. UAL buys the seats in the back, but the JS is STILL the respective carrier's, and ANY mainline partner is retarded if they think they own that too. DALALPA tried it a few years back on their DelCon carriers, ehhhh, didn't work out so good for them.

So it sucks that maybe an OO pilot (or any other pilot) "threatened you". And for the record, there's been multiple times when UAX pilots have been denied the JS on mainline metal. You know, those guys that say they don't let RJ guys on their JS. Happened at BOTH the carriers I've worked at. I encourage those guys to tell the CA just what you said above;

"Dont take me to work, I don't care. But how do you think it's going to go for you when I don't make a trip because I was denied a Jumpseat on an airplane with a united paint job on it?"

Now, as far as this whole SA0X or whatever it is. Are all you guys sure that it's NOT a deadheading crew member? UAL will PS one to get them INTO position, as far as DH'ing them BACK to domicile, ehhhhh, UAL doesn't really do that for UAX crew members so much. IOW, the ONLY time it's positive space back to domicile is the LAST flight.
Yes I'm sure. SA is not a Positive Space code. It was a 2011 hire United Express employees and kid who got the first two standby seats on the airplane. I was delayed in arrival so I didn't have a chance to rectify it before they were already on board. All the UAL employees got on anyway, so it was a moot point THIS TIME.

You didn't need to type all that. I know exactly what happened. And I know exactly what is happening now. We are over a month into this problem, and United has ZERO intention of fixing it anytime soon even though its just a "quick change to the program". Same as your little Jumpseat fit. But somehow, you wanted THAT problem resolved IMMEDIATELY by our JS committee (who has NO control over the situation), but now its no big deal. I don't expect a resolution for several months. Why? For the same reason I told you guys that it would take awhile for the Jumpseat problem to be fixed. Because United Airlines, you know, the ones who actually control the system, DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES. I also remember that at the time of that little Jumpseat snafu we were reeling from the fallout of a Ch 11 filing, a 50% pay cut, parking an additional 100 airplanes, furloughing thousands of pilots, and getting our work rules gutted. In other words, we were a little busy. Personally, I think UAL should have priority on UAX jumpseats anyway as we paid for the airplane. My company doesn't care enough about us to set it up that way, so the system is as it is, and I accept that. For your at-risk flying, I firmly agree all UAX pilots and employees should go behind UAL employees. As my spouse is a UAX employee, I have the "privilege" of seeing what is being said on some of the UAX employee boards. The sense of entitlement is astonishing for a company with someone else's paint job on the side of the plane, someone else's name in their announcements, sells no tickets, and doesn't pay for their own fuel. Just my .02c
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:55 PM
  #25  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by xjtguy View Post
I'll ask the question again, since you overlooked/ignored it. Are you absolutely sure the SA0X UAX person is NOT on a deadhead? Because, again, not all UAX deadheads are positive space, you're simply at the top of the non-rev list. It's ONLY if it's getting into position that it becomes a positive space, OR the last flight back to domicile that's positive space. Otherwise, again, it's just top priority SA travel.
Wait, explain this further please. In this particular case, it was a UAX employee traveling with their kid, and it wasn't flight crew, so it was definitely not a deadhead. What kind of DH are you talking about? The only DH we have is traveling to cover an assignment, or returning from that assignment. We can deviate from a DH on another flight, but that too is positive space, just at a different priority. There is no such thing as a "space available DH". How is it that your company can just put you at the top of a UAL standby list but not make it positive space? That is something else I need to make sure we grieve.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 02:57 PM
  #26  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by uaav8r View Post
This thread is about the "SA0X" boarding priority being erroneously applied to UAX personnel on mainline UAL flights. It has nothing to do with anyone's jumpseat. It has everything to do with United Airlines employees and their families being left behind at the gate. There is no "jumpseat war" going on here. Until this gets fixed, IF YOU ARE A UAX EMPLOYEE TRAVELING ON YOUR OWN METAL AND SUBSEQUENTIALLY RETURNING ON A UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT, YOU SHOULD LIST ONE WAY, EACH WAY! Otherwise you will likely be boarding the United Airlines flight on a bogus priority. There's the temporary fix guys. Now just show some INTEGRITY!!!
In fairness to the xjet poster, I'm the one who brought the jumpseat up. I was simply trying to remind the UAX pilots how stupid it was that they threatened a jumpseat action against UAL pilots over a computer glitch.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 03:04 PM
  #27  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Default

Originally Posted by HSLD View Post
And they know the boarding priority, employing company, and seniority how?

This is a UNICAL IT problem that highlites the recent PSS changeover "success". Placing blame or responsibility on individual pass riders is as misplaced as trying to start a jumpseat war.
The same way that I knew that I was getting aced by a 2011 hire Express employee. I looked at the codes when I listed and asked.

I fully agree that this is a UNICAL problem, and not the responsibility of Express employees. Perhaps we should remind the UAX pilots the same next time there is a glitch in the system that goofs up their jumpseat priority.

Here's the rub. I'm PRAYING that I don't make it to work soon because I get left behind while a bunch of United Express employees waltz on to our jets. It would be SOOO sweet to call the Chief Pilot and explain why I didn't make my trip, followed by a grievance to make sure I was paid for it due to it being a UAL induced failure. HOWEVER, when I don't make it home to my family on one of my 9-10 nights at home a month for the same reason, my sense of humor dims considerably.
gettinbumped is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 03:30 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Default

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
You didn't need to type all that.
I know, I was simply interjecting the facts of what went down, as they are OFTEN left out.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
I know exactly what happened. And I know exactly what is happening now. We are over a month into this problem, and United has ZERO intention of fixing it anytime soon even though its just a "quick change to the program". Same as your little Jumpseat fit.
Just to clarify. I WASN'T flying UAX at that time, so it's not my "little jumpseat fit". Just as the JetBlue pilots that were having problems in JFK years ago wasn't my "little fit" either. But it sure was a reflection of how some legacy pilots tend to behave.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
But somehow, you wanted THAT problem resolved IMMEDIATELY by our JS committee (who has NO control over the situation), but now its no big deal. I don't expect a resolution for several months. Why? For the same reason I told you guys that it would take awhile for the Jumpseat problem to be fixed. Because United Airlines, you know, the ones who actually control the system, DON'T CARE ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES.
Sigh.......As stated, the problem went on for well over a year, closer to 2. The UAX JS chairs were going through proper channels and were running into a brick wall EVERY SINGLE TIME. So as far as "immediately" goes, it's all relative.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
I also remember that at the time of that little Jumpseat snafu we were reeling from the fallout of a Ch 11 filing, a 50% pay cut, parking an additional 100 airplanes, furloughing thousands of pilots, and getting our work rules gutted. In other words, we were a little busy.
Yep, sucks. And just like I told you last week before and after you went to the dentist. I've been there, I've done that. A bunch of children exercising their own little agendas on other pilots gets them NOWHERE! So the fact that management just got done handing you guys you aresholes via BK concession is NO excuse to treat other pilots badly, is it?

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
Personally, I think UAL should have priority on UAX jumpseats anyway as we paid for the airplane.
Have to agree to disagree on this one. Your company DIDN'T pay for the airplane. They're leased. In the case of the ERJ's, they are leased by UNICAL, then subleased to ExpressJet. Now, if UNICAL wanted to buy the airplanes, bring ALL the RJ flying back in house, then I could see a priority. But UAL DIDN'T buy the airplane, they ONLY bought the revenue seats in the back, NOT the jumpseat

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
[b]Wait, explain this further please[b]. In this particular case, it was a UAX employee traveling with their kid, and it wasn't flight crew, so it was definitely not a deadhead. What kind of DH are you talking about? The only DH we have is traveling to cover an assignment, or returning from that assignment. We can deviate from a DH on another flight, but that too is positive space, just at a different priority. [b]There is no such thing as a "space available DH". How is it that your company can just put you at the top of a UAL standby list but not make it positive space? That is something else I need to make sure we grieve.[b]
As stated, when a UAX crewmember needs to get to an outstation or other hub other than they're domicile, UAX positive spaces them. Or rather, the UAX carrier buys the seat on mainline to get them there. And it costs the UAX carrier a decent chunk of change to do so. However, when it's to return them to domicile, that DH is NOT positive space unless it's the last flight of the day. IOW, a crew member that is supposed to be DH'd back to domicile ISN'T positive space, yet is on a deadhead. But that deadhead priority is ONLY on a SA basis, unless the last flight of the day. Does that make sense? What are you going to grieve, that a crewmember that is supposed to be on a positive space/deadhead isn't really on a positive space and that they're OLNY on the top of the non-rev pile? Again, it's a deadhead, the crew member is working and on a duty period, yet isn't positive space. But back to my point, sure. Put all deadheading UAX crewmembers behind ALL non revenue ALL the time. Let a bunch UAX flights cancel, let a buch of UAL passengers that bought tickets from UAL be inconvenienced and cost even MORE money that gets to come out of BOTH our paychecks.

Originally Posted by gettinbumped View Post
Here's the rub. I'm PRAYING that I don't make it to work soon because I get left behind while a bunch of United Express employees waltz on to our jets. It would be SOOO sweet to call the Chief Pilot and explain why I didn't make my trip, followed by a grievance to make sure I was paid for it due to it being a UAL induced failure. HOWEVER, when I don't make it home to my family on one of my 9-10 nights at home a month for the same reason, my sense of humor dims considerably.
And I agree with your point. Seriously, if I don't get to work because of a lack of boarding priority or some little CA's personal agenda of denying express pilots the jumpseat, I'm a honeybadger. I don't care. I call my CP and tell them what happened and that's that. When it comes to getting home, lack of boarding priority doesn't concern me. Because AGAIN, just like I told you last week, the regional ISN'T my career destination.
xjtguy is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 06:02 PM
  #29  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Default

Read on another forum that a new software upload tonight will fix this.

Put your assault rifles away !!
757Driver is offline  
Old 04-11-2012, 06:22 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
uaav8r's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: 737 Captain
Posts: 374
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
Read on another forum that a new software upload tonight will fix this.

Put your assault rifles away !!
Thank goodness!....See there, the squeaky wheel does get greased on occasion!
uaav8r is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
heading180
Regional
6098
08-18-2014 01:11 PM
BlueSkiesAhead
Major
21
09-10-2011 06:40 AM
SoCalGuy
United
32
04-03-2011 06:25 AM
ecloebl
Major
22
09-22-2007 03:31 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
1
07-07-2006 10:19 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices